AMERICAN ELOQUENCE STUDIES IN AMERICAN POLITICAL HISTORY Edited with Introduction by Alexander Johnston Reedited by James Albert Woodburn Volume I (of 4) CONTENTS. PREFACE INTRODUCTORY I--COLONIALISM. THE FORMATION OF THE CONSTITUTION JAMES OTIS PATRICK HENRY SAMUEL ADAMS ALEXANDER HAMILTON JAMES MADISON II--CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT. ALBERT GALLATIN FISHER AMES JOHN NICHOLAS III. -THE RISE OF DEMOCRACY. THOMAS JEFFERSON JOHN RANDOLPH JOSIAH QUINCY HENRY CLAY IV. --THE RISE OF NATIONALITY. ROBERT Y. HAYNE DANIEL WEBSTER JOHN C. CALHOUN THOMAS H. BENTON LIST OF PORTRAITS. VOL. I. ALEXANDER HAMILTON -- Frontispiece From a painting by COL. J. TRUMBULL. PATRICK HENRY From a painting by JAMES B. LONGACRE. SAMUEL ADAMS From a steel engraving. JAMES MADISON From a painting by GILBERT STUART. FISHER AMES From a painting by GILBERT STUART. THOMAS JEFFERSON From a painting by GILBERT STUART. JOHN RANDOLPH. PREFACE TO THE REVISED EDITION. In offering to the public a revised edition of Professor Johnston'sAmerican Eloquence, a brief statement may be permitted of the changesand additions involved in the revision. In consideration of the favorwith which the compilation of Professor Johnston had been received, andof its value to all who are interested in the study of American history, the present editor has deemed it wise to make as few omissions aspossible from the former volumes. The changes have been chiefly in theway of additions. The omission, from the first volume, of Washington'sInaugural and President Nott's oration on the death of Hamilton is theresult, not of a depreciation of the value of these, but of a desire toutilize the space with selections and subjects which are deemed moredirectly valuable as studies in American political history. Madison'sspeech on the adoption of the Constitution, made before the VirginiaConvention, is substituted for one of Patrick Henry's on the sameoccasion. Madison's is a much more valuable discussion of the issues andprinciples involved, and, besides, the volume has the advantage ofHenry's eloquence when he was at his best, at the opening of theAmerican Revolution. In compensation for the omissions there are addedselections, one each from Otis, Samuel Adams, Gallatin, and Benton. Thecompleted first volume, therefore, offers to the student of Americanpolitical history chapters from the life and work of sixteenrepresentative orators and statesmen of America. In addition to the changes made in the selections, the editor has addedbrief biographical sketches, references, and textual and historicalnotes which, it is hoped, will add to the educational value of thevolumes, as well as to the interest and intelligence with which thecasual reader may peruse the speeches. As a teacher of American history, I have found no more luminous texts onour political history than the speeches of the great men who have beenable, in their discussions of public questions, to place before us acontemporary record of the history which they themselves were helping tomake. To the careful student the secondary authorities can never supplythe place of the great productions, the messages and speeches, whichhistoric occasions have called forth. The earnest historical reader willapproach these orations, not with the design of regarding then merely asspecimens of eloquence or as studies in language, but as indicating thegreat subjects and occasions of our political history and the spirit andmotives of the great leaders of that history. The orations lead thestudent to a review of the great struggles in which the authors wereengaged, and to new interest in the science of government from theutterances and permanent productions of master participants in greatpolitical controversies. Certainly, there is no text-book in politicalscience more valuable than the best productions of great statesmen, asreflecting the ideas of those who have done most to make politicalhistory. With these ideas in mind, the editor has added rather extensivehistorical notes, with the purpose of suggesting the use of the speechesas the basis of historical study, and of indicating other similarsources for investigation. These notes, together with explanations ofany obscurities in the text, and other suggestions for study, will serveto indicate the educational value of the volumes; and it is hoped thatthey may lead many teachers and students to see in these orations a textsuitable as a guide to valuable studies in American political history. The omissions of parts of the speeches, made necessary by the exigenciesof space, consist chiefly of those portions which were but of temporaryinterest and importance, and which would not be found essential to anunderstanding of the subject in hand. The omissions, however, havealways been indicated so as not to mislead the reader, and in mostinstances the substance of the omissions has been indicated in thenotes. The general division of the work has been retained: 1. Colonialism, to1789. Constitutional Government, to 1801. 3. The Rise of Democracy, to1815. 4. The Rise of Nationality, to 1840. 5. The Slavery Struggle, to1860. 6. Secession and Civil War, to 1865. The extension of the studiescovering these periods, by the addition of much new material has madenecessary the addition of a fourth volume, which embraces the generalsubjects, (1) Reconstruction; (2) Free Trade and Protection; (3)Finance; (4) Civil-Service Reform. Professor Johnston's valuableintroductions to the several sections have been substantially retained. By the revision, the volumes will be confined entirely to politicaloratory. Literature and religion have, each in its place, called forthworthy utterances in American oratory. These, certainly, have animportant place in the study of our national life. But it has beendeemed advisable to limit the scope of these volumes to that field ofhistory which Mr. Freeman has called "past politics, "--to the process bywhich Americans, past and present, have built and conducted their state. The study of the state, its rise, its organization, and its development, is, after all, the richest field for the student and reader of history. "History. " says Professor Seeley, "may be defined as the biography ofstates. To study history thus is to study politics at the same time. Ifhistory is not merely eloquent writing, but a serious scientificinvestigation, and if we are to consider that it is not mereanthropology or sociology, but a science of states, then the study ofhistory is absolutely the study of politics. " It is into this greatfield of history that these volumes would direct the reader. No American scholar had done more, before his untimely death, than theoriginal editor of these orations, to cultivate among Americans anintelligent study of our politics and political history. These volumes, which he designed, are a worthy memorial of his appreciation of thevalue to American students of the best specimens of our politicaloratory. J. A. W. INTRODUCTORY. All authorities are agreed that the political history of the UnitedStates, beyond much that is feeble or poor in quality, has given to theEnglish language very many of its most finished and most persuasivespecimens of oratory. It is natural that oratory should be a power in arepublic; but, in the American republic, the force of institutions hasbeen reinforced by that of a language which is peculiarly adapted to thedisplay of eloquence. Collections of American orations have beennumerous and useful, but the copiousness of the material has alwaysproved a source of embarrassment. Where the supply is so abundant, it isexceedingly difficult to make selections on any exact system, and yetimpossible to include all that has a fair claim to the distinctive stampof oratory. The results have been that our collections of publicspeeches have proved either unsatisfactory or unreasonably voluminous. The design which has controlled the present collection has been to makesuch selections from the great orations of American history as shallshow most clearly the spirit and motives which have actuated itsleaders, and to connect them by a thread of commentary which shallconvey the practical results of the conflicts of opinion revealed in theselections. In the execution of such a work much must be allowed forpersonal limitations; that which would seem representative to one wouldnot seem at all representative to others. It will not be difficult tomark omissions, some of which may seem to mar the completeness of thework very materially; the only claim advanced is that the work has beendone with a consistent desire to show the best side of all lines ofthought which have seriously modified the course of American history. Some great names will be missed from the list of orators, and some greataddresses from the list of orations; the apology for their omission isthat they have not seemed to be so closely related to the current ofAmerican history or so operative upon its course as to demand theirinsertion. Any errors under this head have occurred in spite of carefulconsideration and anxious desire to be scrupulously impartial. Very many of the orations selected have been condensed by the omissionof portions which had no relevancy to the purpose in hand, or were ofonly a temporary interest and importance. Such omissions have beenindicated, so that the reader need not be misled, while the effort hasbeen made to so manage the omissions as to maintain a complete logicalconnection among the parts which have been put to use. A tempting methodof preserving such a connection is, of course, the insertion of words orsentences which the speaker might have used, though he did not; but sucha method seemed too dangerous and possibly too misleading, and it hasbeen carefully avoided. None of the selections contain a word of foreignmatter, with the exception of one of Randolph's speeches and Mr. Beecher's Liverpool speech, where the matter inserted has been takenfrom the only available report, and is not likely to mislead the reader. For very much the same reason, footnotes have been avoided, and thespeakers have been left to speak for themselves. Such a process of omission will reveal to any one who undertakes it anunderlying characteristic of our later, as distinguished from ourearlier, oratory. The careful elaboration of the parts, the restraint ofeach topic treated to its appropriate part, and the systematicdevelopment of the parts into a symmetrical whole, are as markedlypresent in the latter as they are absent in the former. The process ofselection has therefore been progressively more difficult as thesubject-matter has approached contemporary times. In our earlierorations, the distinction and separate treatment of the parts is socarefully observed that it has been comparatively an easy task to seizeand appropriate the parts especially desirable. In our later orations, with some exceptions, there is an evidently decreasing attention tosystem. The whole is often a collection of _disjecta membra_ ofarguments, so interdependent that omissions of any sort are exceedinglydangerous to the meaning of the speaker. To do justice to his meaning, and give the whole oration, would be an impossible strain on the spaceavailable; to omit any portion is usually to lose one or more buttressesof some essential feature in his argument. The distinction is submittedwithout any desire to explain it on theory, but only as a suggestion ofa practical difficulty in a satisfactory execution of the work. The general division of the work has been into (1) Colonialism, to 1789;(2) Constitutional Government, to 1801; (5) the Rise of Democracy, to1815; (4) the Rise of Nationality, to 1840; (5) the Slavery struggle, to1860; (6) Secession and Reconstruction, to 1876; (7) Free Trade andProtection. In such a division, it has been found necessary to include, in a few cases, orations which have not been strictly within the timelimits of the topic, but have had a close logical connection with it. Itis hoped, however, that all such cases will show their own necessity tooclearly for any need of further ex-planation or excuse. I. COLONIALISM. THE FORMATION OF THE CONSTITUTION. It has been said by an excellent authority that the Constitution was"extorted from the grinding necessities of a reluctant people. " Thetruth of the statement is very quickly recognized by even the mostsurface student of American politics. The struggle which began in 1774-5was the direct outcome of the spirit of independence. Rather than submitto a degrading government by the arbitrary will of a foreign Parliament, the Massachusetts people chose to enter upon an almost unprecedented warof a colony against the mother country. Rather than admit the precedentof the oppression of a sister colony, the other colonies chose tosupport Massachusetts in her resistance. Resistance to Parliamentinvolved resistance to the Crown, the only power which had hithertoclaimed the loyalty of the colonists; and one evil feature of theRevolution was that the spirit of loyalty disappeared for a time fromAmerican politics. There were, without doubt, many individual cases ofloyalty to "Continental interests"; but the mass of the people hadmerely unlearned their loyalty to the Crown, and had learned no otherloyalty to take its place. Their nominal allegiance to the individualcolony was weakened by their underlying consciousness that they reallywere a part of a greater nation; their national allegiance had neverbeen claimed by any power. The weakness of the confederation was apparent even before its completeratification. The Articles of Confederation were proposed by theContinental Congress, Nov. 15, 1777. They were ratified by eleven Statesduring the year 1778, and Delaware ratified in 1779. Maryland alone heldout and refused to ratify for two years longer. Her long refusal was dueto her demand for a national control of the Western territory, whichmany of the States were trying to appropriate. It was not until therewas positive evidence that the Western territory was to be nationalproperty that Maryland acceded to the articles, and they went intooperation. The interval had given time for study of them, and theirdefects were so patent that there was no great expectation amongthinking men of any other result than that which followed. The nationalpower which the confederation sought to create was an entire nonentity. There was no executive power, except committees of Congress, and thesehad no powers to execute. Congress had practically only the power torecommend to the States. It had no power to tax, to support armies ornavies, to provide for the interest or payment of the public debt, toregulate commerce or internal affairs, or to perform any other functionof an efficient national government. It was merely a convenientinstrument of repudiation for the States; Congress was to borrow moneyand incur debts, which the States could refuse or neglect to providefor. Under this system affairs steadily drifted from bad to worse forsome six years after the formal ratification of the articles. Thereseemed to be no remedy in the forms of law, for the articles expresslyprovided that no alteration was to be made except by the assent of everyState. Congress proposed alterations, such as the temporary grant toCongress of power to levy duties on imports; but these proposals werealways vetoed by one or more states. In 1780, in a private letter, Hamilton had suggested a convention of theStates to revise the articles, and as affairs grew worse the propositionwas renewed by others. The first attempt to hold such a convention, onthe call of Virginia, was a failure; but five States sent delegates toAnnapolis, and these wisely contented themselves with recommendinganother convention in the following year. Congress was persuaded toendorse this summons; twelve of the States chose delegates, and theconvention met at Philadelphia, May, 14, 1787. A quorum was obtained, May 25th, and the deliberations of the convention lasted until Sept. 28th, when the Constitution was reported to Congress. The difficulties which met the convention were mainly the results of thedivision of the States into large and small States. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia, the States whichclaimed to extend to the Mississippi on the west and cherishedindefinite expectations of future growth, were the "large" States. Theydesired to give as much power as possible to the new nationalgovernment, on condition that the government should be so framed thatthey should have control of it. The remaining States were properly"small" states, and desired to form a government which would leave asmuch power as possible to the States. Circumstances worked strongly infavor of a reasonable result. There never were more than eleven Statesin the convention. Rhode Island, a small State, sent no delegates. TheNew Hampshire delegates did not appear until the New York delegates(except Hamilton) had lost patience and retired from the convention. Pennsylvania was usually neutral. The convention was thus composed offive large, five small, and one neutral State; and almost all itsdecisions were the outcome of judicious compromise. The large States at first proposed a Congress in both of whose Housesthe State representation should be proportional. They would thus havehad a clear majority in both Houses, and, as Congress was to elect thePresident, and other officers, the government would thus have been alarge State government. When "the little States gained their point, " byforcing through the equal representation of the States in the Senate, the unsubstantial nature of the "national" pretensions of the largeStates at once became apparent. The opposition to the whole schemecentred in the large States, with very considerable assistance from NewYork, which was not satisfied with the concessions which the smallStates had obtained in the convention. The difficulty of ratificationmay be estimated from the final votes in the following Stateconventions: Massachusetts, 187 to 163; New Hampshire, 57 to 46;Virginia, 89 to 79, and New York, 30 to 27. It should also be noted thatthe last two ratifications were only made after the ninth State (NewHampshire) had ratified, and when it was certain that the Constitutionwould go into effect with or with-out the ratification of Virginia orNew York. North Carolina did not ratify until 1789, and Rhode Island notuntil 1790. The division between North and South also appeared in the convention. Inorder to carry over the Southern States to the support of the finalcompromise, it was necessary to insert a guarantee of the slave tradefor twenty years, and a provision that three fifths of the slaves shouldbe counted in estimating the population for State representation inCongress. But these provisions, so far as we can judge from the debatesof the time, had no influence against the ratification of theConstitution; the struggle turned on the differences between thenational leaders, aided by the satisfied small States, on one side, andthe leaders of the State party, aided by the dissatisfied States, largeand small, on the other. The former, the Federalists, were successful, though by very narrow majorities in several of the States. Washingtonwas unanimously elected the first President of the Republic; and the newgovernment was inaugurated at New York, March 4, 1789. The speech of Henry in the Virginia House of Delegates has been chosenas perhaps the best representative of the spirit which impelled andguided the American Revolution. It is fortunate that the ablest of thenational leaders was placed in the very focus of opposition to theConstitution, so that we may take Hamilton's argument in the New Yorkconvention and Madison's in the Virginia convention, as the mostcarefully stated conclusions of the master-minds of the National party. JAMES OTIS OF MASSACHUSETTS. (BORN 1725, DIED 1783. ) ON THE WRITS OF ASSISTANCE--BEFORE THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, FEBRUARY, 1761. MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONORS: I was desired by one of the court to lookinto the books, and consider the question now before them concerningWrits of Assistance. I have accordingly considered it, and now appearnot only in obedience to your order, but likewise in behalf of theinhabitants of this town, who have presented another petition, and outof regard to the liberties of the subject. And I take this opportunityto declare, that whether under a fee or not (for in such a cause as thisI despise a fee), I will to my dying day oppose with all the powers andfaculties God has given me, all such instruments of slavery on the onehand, and villainy on the other, as this writ of assistance is. It appears to me the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the mostdestructive of English liberty and the fundamental principles of law, that ever was found in an English law-book. I must therefore beg yourhonors' patience and attention to the whole range of an argument, thatmay perhaps appear uncommon in many things, as well as to points oflearning that are more remote and unusual: that the whole tendency of mydesign may the more easily be perceived, the conclusions better descend, and the force of them be better felt. I shall not think much of my painsin this cause, as I engaged in it from principle. I was solicited toargue this cause as Advocate-General; and because I would not, I havebeen charged with desertion from my office. To this charge I can give avery sufficient answer. I renounced that office, and I argue this causefrom the same principle; and I argue it with the greater pleasure, as itis in favor of British liberty, at a time when we hear the greatestmonarch upon earth declaring from his throne that he glories in the nameof Briton, and that the privileges of his people are dearer to him thanthe most valuable prerogatives of his crown; and as it is in oppositionto a kind of power, the exercise of which in former periods of historycost one king of England his head, and another his throne. I have takenmore pains in this cause than I ever will take again, although myengaging in this and another popular cause has raised much resentment. But I think I can sincerely, declare, that I cheerfully submit myself toevery odious name for conscience' sake; and from my soul I despise allthose whose guilt, malice, or folly has made them my foes. Let theconsequences be what they will, I am determined to proceed. The onlyprinciples of public conduct, that are worthy of a gentleman or a man, are to sacrifice estate, ease, health, and applause, and even life, tothe sacred calls of his country. These manly sentiments, in private life, make the good citizens; inpublic life, the patriot and the hero. I do not say that, when broughtto the test, I shall be invincible. I pray God I may never be brought tothe melancholy trial, but if ever I should, it will be then known howfar I can reduce to practice principles which I know to be founded intruth. In the meantime I will proceed to the subject of this writ. Your honors will find in the old books concerning the office of ajustice of the peace, precedents of general warrants to search suspectedhouses. But in more modern books, you will find only special warrants tosearch such and such houses, specially named, in which the complainanthas before sworn that he suspects his goods are concealed; and will findit adjudged, that special warrants only are legal. In the same manner Irely on it, that the writ prayed for in this petition, being general, isillegal. It is a power that places the liberty of every man in the handsof every petty officer. I say I admit that special writs of assistance, to search special places, may be granted to certain persons on oath; butI deny that the writ now prayed for can be granted, for I beg leave tomake some observations on the writ itself, before I proceed to otheracts of Parliament. In the first place, the writ is universal, beingdirected "to all and singular justices, sheriffs, constables, and allother officers and subjects"; so that, in short, it is directed to everysubject in the king's dominions. Every one with this writ may be atyrant; if this commission be legal, a tyrant in a legal manner, also, may control, imprison, or murder anyone within the realm. In the nextplace, it is perpetual, there is no return. A man is accountable to noperson for his doings. Every man may reign secure in his petty tyranny, and spread terror and desolation around him, until the trump of thearchangel shall excite different emotions in his soul. In the thirdplace, a person with this writ, in the daytime, may enter all houses, shops, etc. , at will, and command all to assist him. Fourthly, by thiswrit, not only deputies, etc. , but even their menial servants, areallowed to lord it over us. What is this but to have the curse of Canaanwith a witness on us: to be the servant of servants, the most despicableof God's creation? Now one of the most essential branches of Englishliberty is the freedom of one's house. A man's house is his castle; andwhilst he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle. This writ, if it should be declared legal, would totally annihilate thisprivilege. Custom-house officers may enter our houses when they please;we are commanded to permit their entry. Their menial servants may enter, may break locks, bars, and everything in their way; and whether theybreak through malice or revenge, no man, no court can inquire. Baresuspicion without oath is sufficient. This wanton exercise of this poweris not a chimerical suggestion of a heated brain. I will mention somefacts. Mr. Pew had one of these writs, and when Mr. Ware succeeded him, he endorsed this writ over to Mr. Ware; so that these writs arenegotiable from one officer to another; and so your honors have noopportunity of judging the persons to whom this vast power is delegated. Another instance is this: Mr. Justice Walley had called this same Mr. Ware before him, by a constable, to answer for a breach of theSabbath-day acts, or that of profane swearing. As soon as he hadfinished, Mr. Ware asked him if he had done. He replied, "Yes. " "Wellthen, " said Mr. Ware, "I will show you a little of my power. I commandyou to permit me to search your house for uncustomed goods"; and went onto search the house from the garret to the cellar; and then served theconstable in the same manner! But to show another absurdity in thiswrit: if it should be established, I insist upon it every person, by the14th Charles Second, has this power as well as the custom-houseofficers. The words are: "it shall be lawful for any person or personsauthorized, " etc. What a scene does this open! Every man prompted byrevenge, ill-humor, or wantonness to inspect the inside of hisneighbor's house, may get a writ of assistance. Others will ask it fromself-defence; one arbitrary exertion will provoke another, until societybe involved in tumult and in blood: PATRICK HENRY OF VIRGINIA. (BORN 1736, DIED 1799) CONVENTION OF DELEGATES, MARCH 28, 1775 MR. PRESIDENT: No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well asabilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed theHouse. But different men often see the same subject in different lights;and, therefore, I hope that it will not be thought disrespectful tothose gentlemen, if, entertaining as I do, opinions of a character veryopposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and withoutreserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House isone of awful moment to this country. For my own part I consider it asnothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion tothe magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. Itis only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfil thegreat responsibility Which we hold to God and our country. Should I keepback my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offence, Ishould consider myself as guilty of treason toward my country, and of anact of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which I revere above allearthly-kings. Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to thesong of that syren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the partof wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are wedisposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, andhaving ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporalsalvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I amwilling to know the whole truth; to know the worst and to provide forit. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp ofexperience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in theconduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify thosehopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves andthe House? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has beenlately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves howthis gracious reception of our petition comports with these war-likepreparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets andarmies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shownourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in towin back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are theimplements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kingsresort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array. If itspurpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any otherpossible motives for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter ofthe world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for noother. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains whichthe British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we tooppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that forthe last ten years. Have we any thing new to offer on the subject?Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it iscapable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty andhumble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not beenalready exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselveslonger. Sir, we have done every thing that could be done, to avert thestorm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated;we have supplicated: we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, andhave implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of theministry and parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; ourremonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; oursupplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, withcontempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, maywe indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longerany room for hope. If we wish to be free--if we mean to preserveinviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so longcontending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in whichwe have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves neverto abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and tothe God of Hosts is all that is left us! They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidablean adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when aBritish guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gatherstrength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means ofeffectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging thedelusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand andfoot? Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means whichthe God of nature bath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that whichwe possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send againstus. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a justGod who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise upfriends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to thestrong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides. Sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is nowtoo late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat, but insubmission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may beheard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! Irepeat it, sir, let it come! It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry peace, peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next galethat sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash ofresounding arms. Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand wehere idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is lifeso dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chainsand slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others maytake; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death! SAMUEL ADAMS OF MASSACHUSETTS (BORN 1722, DIED 1803. ) ON AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE--IN PHILADELPHIA, AUGUST I, 1776. COUNTRYMEN AND BRETHREN: I would gladly have declined an honor, to whichI find myself unequal. I have not the calmness and impartiality whichthe infinite importance of this occasion demands. I will not deny thecharge of my enemies, that resentment for the accumulated injuries ofour country, and an ardor for her glory, rising to enthusiasm, maydeprive me of that accuracy of judgment and expression which men ofcooler passions may possess. Let me beseech you then, to hear me withcaution, to examine without prejudice, and to correct the mistakes intowhich I may be hurried by my zeal. Truth loves an appeal to the common sense of mankind. Your unpervertedunderstandings can best determine on subjects of a practical nature. Thepositions and plans which are said to be above the comprehension of themultitude may be always suspected to be visionary and fruitless. He whomade all men hath made the truths necessary to human happiness obviousto all. Our forefathers threw off the yoke of Popery in religion; for you isreserved the honor of levelling the Popery of politics. They opened theBible to all, and maintained the capacity of every man to judge forhimself in religion. Are we sufficient for the comprehension of thesublimest spiritual truths, and unequal to material and temporal ones?Heaven hath trusted us with the management of things for eternity, andman denies us ability to judge of the present, or to know from ourfeelings the experience that will make us happy. "You can discern, " saythey, "objects distant and remote, but cannot perceive those within yourgrasp. Let us have the distribution of present goods, and cut out andmanage as you please the interests of futurity. " This day, I trust, thereign of political protestantism will commence. We have explored the temple of royalty, and found that the idol we havebowed down to, has eyes which see not, ears that hear not our prayers, and a heart like the nether millstone. We have this day restored theSovereign, to whom alone men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven, and with a propitious eye beholds His subjects assuming that freedom ofthought and dignity of self-direction which He bestowed on them. Fromthe rising to the setting sun, may His kingdom come. Men who content themselves with the semblance of truth, and a display ofwords, talk much of our obligations to Great Britain for protection. Hadshe a single eye to our advantage? A nation of shopkeepers are veryseldom so disinterested. Let us not be so amused with words; theextension of her commerce was her object. When she defended our coasts, she fought for her customers, and convoyed our ships loaded with wealth, which we had acquired for her by our industry. She has treated us asbeasts of burthen, whom the lordly masters cherish that they may carry agreater load. Let us inquire also against whom she has protected us?Against her own enemies with whom we had no quarrel, or only on heraccount, and against whom we always readily exerted our wealth andstrength when they were required. Were these colonies backward in givingassistance to Great Britain, when they were called upon in 1739, to aidthe expedition against Carthagena? They at that time sent three thousandmen to join the British army, although the war commenced without theirconsent. But the last war, 't is said, was purely American. This is avulgar error, which, like many others, has gained credit by beingconfidently repeated. The dispute between the Courts of Great Britainand France, related to the limits of Canada and Nova Scotia. Thecontroverted territory was not claimed by any in the colonies, but bythe Crown of Great Britain. It was therefore their own quarrel. Theinfringement of a right which England had, by the treaty of Utrecht, oftrading in the Indian country of Ohio, was another cause of the war. TheFrench seized large quantities of British manufactures, and tookpossession of a fort which a company of British merchants and factorshad erected for the security of their commerce. The war was thereforewaged in defence of lands claimed by the Crown, and for the protectionof British property. The French at that time had no quarrel withAmerica; and, as appears by letters sent from their commander-in-chief, to some of the colonies, wished to remain in peace with us. The parttherefore which we then took, and the miseries to which we exposedourselves, ought to be charged to our affection for Britain. Thesecolonies granted more than their proportion to the support of the war. They raised, clothed, and maintained nearly twenty-five thousand men, and so sensible were the people of England of our great exertions, thata message was annually sent to the House of Commons purporting: "Thathis majesty, being highly satisfied of the zeal and vigor with which hisfaithful subjects in North America had exerted themselves in defence ofhis majesty's just rights and possessions, recommend it to the House, totake the same into consideration, and enable him to give them a propercompensation. " But what purpose can arguments of this kind answer? Did the protectionwe received annul our rights as men, and lay us under an obligation ofbeing miserable? Who among you, my countrymen, that is a father, would claim authority tomake your child a slave because you had nourished him in his infancy? 'T is a strange species of generosity which requires a return infinitelymore valuable than anything it could have bestowed; that demands as areward for a defence of our property, a surrender of those inestimableprivileges, to the arbitrary will of vindictive tyrants, which alonegive value to that very property. Courage, then, my countrymen! our contest is not only whether weourselves shall be free, but whether there shall be left to mankind anasylum on earth, for civil and religious liberty? Dismissing, therefore, the justice of our cause as incontestable, the only question is, What isbest for us to pursue in our present circumstances? The doctrine of dependence on Great Britain is, I believe, generallyexploded; but as I would attend to the honest weakness of the simplestof men, you will pardon me if I offer a few words on that subject. We are now on this continent, to the astonishment of the world, threemillions of souls united in one common cause. We have large armies, welldisciplined and appointed, with commanders inferior to none in militaryskill, and superior in activity and zeal. We are furnished with arsenalsand stores beyond our most sanguine expectations, and foreign nationsare waiting to crown our success by their alliances. There are instancesof, I would say, an almost astonishing Providence in our favor; oursuccess has staggered our enemies, and almost given faith to infidels;so that we may truly say it is not our own arm which has saved us. The hand of Heaven appears to have led us on to be, perhaps, humbleinstruments and means in the great Providential dispensation which iscompleting. We have fled from the political Sodom; let us not look back, lest we perish and become a monument of infamy and derision to theworld! For can we ever expect more unanimity and a better preparationfor defence; more infatuation of counsel among our enemies, and morevalor and zeal among ourselves? The same force and resistance which aresufficient to procure us our liberties, will secure us a gloriousindependence and support us in the dignity of free, imperial states. Wecan not suppose that our opposition has made a corrupt and dissipatednation more friendly to America, or created in them a greater respectfor the rights of mankind. We can therefore expect a restoration andestablishment of our privileges, and a compensation for the injuries wehave received from their want of power, from their fears, and not fromtheir virtues. The unanimity and valor, which will effect an honorablepeace, can render a future contest for our liberties unnecessary. He whohas strength to chain down the wolf, is a mad-man if he lets him loosewithout drawing his teeth and paring his nails. From the day on which an accommodation takes place between England andAmerica, on any other terms than as independent states, I shall date theruin of this country. A politic minister will study to lull us intosecurity, by granting us the full extent of our petitions. The warmsunshine of influence would melt down the virtue, which the violence ofthe storm rendered more firm and unyielding. In a state of tranquillity, wealth, and luxury, our descendants would forget the arts of war, andthe noble activity and zeal which made their ancestors invincible. Everyart of corruption would be employed to loosen the bond of union whichrenders our resistance formidable. When the spirit of liberty which nowanimates our hearts and gives success to our arms is extinct, ournumbers will accelerate our ruin, and render us easier victims totyranny. Ye abandoned minions of an infatuated ministry, if peradventureany should yet remain among us!--remember that a Warren and a Montgomeryare numbered among the dead. Contemplate the mangled bodies of yourcountrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices?Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship, andplough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have letloose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood, and hunt us from theface of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, thetranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom--go fromus in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick thehands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and mayposterity, forget that ye were our countrymen. To unite the Supremacy of Great Britain and the Liberty of America, isutterly impossible. So vast a continent and of such a distance from theseat of empire, will every day grow more unmanageable. The motion of sounwieldy a body cannot be directed with any dispatch and uniformity, without committing to the Parliament of Great Britain, powersinconsistent with our freedom. The authority and force which would beabsolutely necessary for the preservation of the peace and good order ofthis continent, would put all our valuable rights within the reach ofthat nation. * * * * * * * Some who would persuade us that they have tender feelings for futuregenerations, while they are insensible to the happiness of the present, are perpetually foreboding a train of dissensions under our popularsystem. Such men's reasoning amounts to this--give up all that isvaluable to Great Britain, and then you will have no inducements toquarrel among yourselves; or suffer yourselves to be chained down byyour enemies, that you may not be able to fight with your friends. This is an insult on your virtue as well as your common sense. Yourunanimity this day and through the course of the war is a decisiverefutation of such invidious predictions. Our enemies have already hadevidence that our present constitution contains in it the justice andardor of freedom, and the wisdom and vigor of the most absolute system. When the law is the will of the people, it will be uniform and coherent;but fluctuation, contradiction, and inconsistency of councils must beexpected under those governments where every revolution in the ministryof a court produces one in the state. Such being the folly and pride ofall ministers, that they ever pursue measures directly opposite to thoseof their predecessors. We shall neither be exposed to the necessary convulsions of electiveMonarchies, nor to the want of wisdom, fortitude, and virtue, to whichhereditary succession is liable. In your hands it will be to perpetuatea prudent, active, and just legislature, and which will never expireuntil you yourselves lose the virtues which give it existence. And, brethren and fellow-countrymen, if it was ever granted to mortalsto trace the designs of Providence, and interpret its manifestations infavor of their cause, we may, with humility of soul, cry out, "Not untous, not unto us, but to thy Name be the praise. " The confusion of thedevices among our enemies, and the rage of the elements against them, have done almost as much towards our success as either our councils orour arms. The time at which this attempt on our liberties was made, when we wereripened into maturity, had acquired a knowledge of war, and were freefrom the incursions of enemies in this country, the gradual advances ofour oppressors enabling us to prepare for our defence, the unusualfertility of our lands and clemency of the seasons, the success which atfirst attended our feeble arms, producing unanimity among our friendsand reducing our internal foes to acquiescence, --these are all strongand palpable marks and assurances, that Providence is yet gracious untoZion, that it will turn away the captivity of Jacob. We have now no other alternative than independence, or the mostignominious and galling servitude. The legions of our enemies thicken onour plains; desolation and death mark their bloody career; whilst themangled corpses of our countrymen seem to cry out to us as a voice fromheaven: "Will you permit our posterity to groan under the galling chainsof our murderers? Has our blood been expended in vain? Is the onlyreward which our constancy, till death, has obtained for our country, that it should be sunk into a deeper and more ignominious vassalage?"Recollect who are the men that demand your submission; to whose decreesyou are invited to pay obedience! Men who, unmindful of their relationto you as brethren, of your long implicit submission to their laws; ofthe sacrifice which you and your forefathers made of your naturaladvantages for commerce to their avarice, --formed a deliberate plan towrest from you the small pittance of property which they had permittedyou to acquire. Remember that the men who wish to rule over you are theywho, in pursuit of this plan of despotism, annulled the sacred contractswhich had been made with your ancestors; conveyed into your cities amercenary soldiery to compel you to submission by insult and murder--whocalled your patience, cowardice; your piety, hypocrisy. Countrymen! the men who now invite you to surrender your rights intotheir hands are the men who have let loose the merciless savages to riotin the blood of their brethren--who have dared to establish poperytriumphant in our land--who have taught treachery to your slaves, andcourted them to assassinate your wives and children. These are the men to whom we are exhorted to sacrifice the blessingswhich Providence holds out to us--the happiness, the dignity ofuncontrolled freedom and independence. Let not your generous indignation be directed against any among us whomay advise so absurd and madd'ning a measure. Their number is but fewand daily decreased; and the spirit which can render them patient ofslavery, will render them contemptible enemies. Our Union is now complete; our Constitution composed, established, andapproved. You are now the guardians of your own liberties. We may justlyaddress you, as the _Decemviri_ did the Romans, and say: "Nothing thatwe propose, can pass into a law without your consent. Be yourselves, OAmericans, the authors of those laws on which your happiness depends. " You have now, in the field, armies sufficient to repel the whole forceof your enemies, and their base and mercenary auxiliaries. The hearts ofyour soldiers beat high with the spirit of freedom--they are animatedwith the justice of their cause, and while they grasp their swords, canlook up to Heaven for assistance. Your adversaries are composed ofwretches who laugh at the rights of humanity, who turn religion intoderision, and would, for higher wages, direct their swords against theirleaders or their country. Go on, then, in your generous enterprise, withgratitude to Heaven for past success, and confidence of it in thefuture. For my own part, I ask no greater blessing than to share withyou the common danger and common glory. If I have a wish dearer to mysoul, than that my ashes may be mingled with those of a Warren and aMontgomery, it is--that these American States may never cease to be freeand independent! ALEXANDER HAMILTON, OF NEW YORK. (BORN 1757, DIED 1804. ) ON THE EXPEDIENCY OF ADOPTING THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION --CONVENTION OF NEW YORK, JUNE 24, 1788. I am persuaded, Mr. Chairman, that I in my turn shall be indulged, inaddressing the committee. We all, in equal sincerity, profess to beanxious for the establishment of a republican government, on a safe andsolid basis. It is the object of the wishes of every honest man in theUnited States, and I presume that I shall not be disbelieved, when Ideclare, that it is an object of all others, the nearest and most dearto my own heart. The means of accomplishing this great purpose becomethe most important study which can interest mankind. It is our duty toexamine all those means with peculiar attention, and to choose the bestand most effectual. It is our duty to draw from nature, from reason, from examples, the best principles of policy, and to pursue and applythem in the formation of our government. We should contemplate andcompare the systems, which, in this examination, come under our view;distinguish, with a careful eye, the defects and excellencies of each, and discarding the former, incorporate the latter, as far ascircumstances will admit, into our Constitution. If we pursue adifferent course and neglect this duty, we shall probably disappoint theexpectations of our country and of the world. In the commencement of a revolution, which received its birth from theusurpations of tyranny, nothing was more natural, than that the publicmind should be influenced by an extreme spirit of jealousy. To resistthese encroachments, and to nourish this spirit, was the great object ofall our public and private institutions. The zeal for liberty becamepredominant and excessive. In forming our confederation, this passionalone seemed to actuate us, and we appear to have had no other view thanto secure ourselves from despotism. The object certainly was a valuableone, and deserved our utmost attention. But, sir, there is anotherobject equally important, and which our enthusiasm rendered us littlecapable of regarding: I mean a principle of strength and stability inthe organization of our government, and vigor in its operations. Thispurpose can never be accomplished but by the establishment of someselect body, formed peculiarly upon this principle. There are fewpositions more demonstrable than that there should be in every republic, some permanent body to correct the prejudices, check the intemperatepassions, and regulate the fluctuations of a popular assembly. It isevident, that a body instituted for these purposes, must be so formed asto exclude as much as possible from its own character, those infirmitiesand that mutability which it is designed to remedy. It is thereforenecessary that it should be small, that it should hold its authorityduring a considerable period, and that it should have such anindependence in the exercise of its powers, as will divest it as much aspossible of local prejudices. It should be so formed as to be the centreof political knowledge, to pursue always a steady line of conduct, andto reduce every irregular propensity to system. Without thisestablishment, we may make experiments without end, but shall never havean efficient government. It is an unquestionable truth, that the body of the people in everycountry desire sincerely its prosperity; but it is equallyunquestionable, that they do not possess the discernment and stabilitynecessary for systematic government. To deny that they are frequentlyled into the grossest errors by misinformation and passion, would be aflattery which their own good sense must despise. That branch ofadministration especially, which involves our political relations withforeign states, a community will ever be incompetent to. These truthsare not often held up in public assemblies: but they cannot be unknownto any who hear me. From these principles it follows, that there oughtto be two distinct bodies in our government: one, which shall beimmediately constituted by and peculiarly represent the people, andpossess all the popular features; another, formed upon the principle, and for the purposes, before explained. Such considerations as theseinduced the convention who formed your State constitution, to institutea Senate upon the present plan. The history of ancient and modernrepublics had taught them, that many of the evils which these republicshad suffered, arose from the want of a certain balance and mutualcontrol indispensable to a wise administration; they were convinced thatpopular assemblies are frequently misguided by ignorance, by suddenimpulses, and the intrigues of ambitious men; and that some firm barrieragainst these operations was necessary; they, therefore, instituted yourSenate, and the benefits we have experienced have fully justified theirconceptions. Gentlemen, in their reasoning, have placed the interests of the severalStates, and those of the United States in contrast; this is not a fairview of the subject; they must necessarily be involved in each other. What we apprehend is, that some sinister prejudice, or some prevailingpassion, may assume the form of a genuine interest. The influence ofthese is as powerful as the most permanent conviction of the publicgood; and against this influence we ought to provide. The localinterests of a State ought in every case to give way to the interests ofthe Union; for when a sacrifice of one or the other is necessary, theformer becomes only an apparent, partial interest, and should yield, onthe principle that the small good ought never to oppose the great one. When you assemble from your several counties in the Legislature, wereevery member to be guided only by the apparent interests of his county, government would be impracticable. There must be a perpetualaccommodation and sacrifice of local advantages to general expediency;but the spirit of a mere popular assembly would rarely be actuated bythis important principle. It is therefore absolutely necessary that theSenate should be so formed, as to be unbiased by false conceptions ofthe real interests, or undue attachment to the apparent good of theirseveral States. Gentlemen indulge too many unreasonable apprehensions of danger to theState governments; they seem to suppose that the moment you put men intoa national council, they become corrupt and tyrannical, and lose alltheir affection for their fellow-citizens. But can we imagine that theSenators will ever be so insensible of their own advantage, as tosacrifice the genuine interest of their constituents? The Stategovernments are essentially necessary to the form and spirit of thegeneral system. As long, therefore, as Congress has a full conviction ofthis necessity, they must, even upon principles purely national, have asfirm an attachment to the one as to the other. This conviction can neverleave them, unless they become madmen. While the constitution continuesto be read, and its principle known, the States must, by every rationalman, be considered as essential, component parts of The Union; andtherefore the idea of sacrificing the former to the latter is whollyinadmissible. The objectors do not advert to the natural strength and resources ofState governments, which will ever give them an important superiorityover the general government. If we compare the nature of their differentpowers, or the means of popular influence which each possesses, we shallfind the advantage entirely on the side of the States. Thisconsideration, important as it is, seems to have been little attendedto. The aggregate number of representatives throughout the States may betwo thousand. Their personal influence will, therefore, beproportionably more extensive than that of one or two hundred men inCongress. The State establishments of civil and military officers ofevery description, infinitely surpassing in number any possiblecorrespondent establishments in the general government, will create suchan extent and complication of attachments, as will ever secure thepredilection and support of the people. Whenever, therefore, Congressshall meditate any infringement of the State constitutions, the greatbody of the people will naturally take part with their domesticrepresentatives. Can the general government withstand such an unitedopposition? Will the people suffer themselves to be stripped of theirprivileges? Will they suffer their Legislatures to be reduced to ashadow and a name? The idea is shocking to common-sense. From the circumstances already explained, and many others which might bementioned, results a complicated, irresistible check, which must eversupport the existence and importance of the State governments. Thedanger, if any exists, flows from an opposite source. The probable evilis, that the general government will be too dependent on the StateLegislatures, too much governed by their prejudices, and too obsequiousto their humors; that the States, with every power in their hands, willmake encroachments on the national authority, till the Union is weakenedand dissolved. Every member must have been struck with an observation of a gentlemanfrom Albany. Do what you will, says he, local prejudices and opinionswill go into the government. What! shall we then form a constitution to cherish and strengthen theseprejudices? Shall we confirm the distemper, instead of remedying it. Itis undeniable that there must be a control somewhere. Either the generalinterest is to control the particular interests, or the contrary. If theformer, then certainly the government ought to be so framed, as torender the power of control efficient to all intents and purposes; ifthe latter, a striking absurdity follows; the controlling powers must beas numerous as the varying interests, and the operations of thegovernment must therefore cease; for the moment you accommodate thesedifferent interests, which is the only way to set the government inmotion, you establish a controlling power. Thus, whatever constitutionalprovisions are made to the contrary, every government will be at lastdriven to the necessity of subjecting the partial to the universalinterest. The gentlemen ought always, in their reasoning, to distinguishbetween the real, genuine good of a State, and the opinions andprejudices which may prevail respecting it; the latter may be opposed tothe general good, and consequently ought to be sacrificed; the former isso involved in it, that it never can be sacrificed. There are certain social principles in human nature from which we maydraw the most solid conclusions with respect to the conduct ofindividuals and of communities. We love our families more than ourneighbors; we love our neighbors more than our countrymen in general. The human affections, like the solar heat, lose their intensity as theydepart from the centre, and become languid in proportion to theexpansion of the circle on which they act. On these principles, theattachment of the individual will be first and forever secured by theState governments; they will be a mutual protection and support. Anothersource of influence, which has already been pointed out, is the variousofficial connections in the States. Gentlemen endeavor to evade theforce of this by saying that these offices will be insignificant. Thisis by no means true. The State officers will ever be important, becausethey are necessary and useful. Their powers are such as are extremelyinteresting to the people; such as affect their property, their liberty, and life. What is more important than the administration of justice andthe execution of the civil and criminal laws? Can the State governmentsbecome insignificant while they have the power of raising moneyindependently and without control? If they are really useful; if theyare calculated to promote the essential interests of the people; theymust have their confidence and support. The States can never lose theirpowers till the whole people of America are robbed of their liberties. These must go together; they must support each other, or meet one commonfate. On the gentleman's principle, we may safely trust the Stategovernments, though we have no means of resisting them; but we cannotconfide in the national government, though we have an effectualconstitutional guard against every encroachment. This is the essence oftheir argument, and it is false and fallacious beyond conception. With regard to the jurisdiction of the two governments, I shallcertainly admit that the Constitution ought to be so formed as not toprevent the States from providing for their own existence; and Imaintain that it is so formed; and that their power of providing forthemselves is sufficiently established. This is conceded by onegentleman, and in the next breath the concession is retracted. He saysCongress has but one exclusive right in taxation--that of duties onimports; certainly, then, their other powers are only concurrent. But totake off the force of this obvious conclusion, he immediately says thatthe laws of the United States are supreme; and that where there is onesupreme there cannot be a concurrent authority; and further, that wherethe laws of the Union are supreme, those of the States must besubordinate; because there cannot be two supremes. This is curioussophistry. That two supreme powers cannot act together is false. Theyare inconsistent only when they are aimed at each other or at oneindivisible object. The laws of the United States are supreme, as to alltheir proper, constitutional objects; the laws of the States are supremein the same way. These supreme laws may act on different objects withoutclashing; or they may operate on different parts of the same commonobject with perfect harmony. Suppose both governments should lay a taxof a penny on a certain article; has not each an independent anduncontrollable power to collect its own tax? The meaning of the maxim, there cannot be two supremes, is simply this--two powers cannot besupreme over each other. This meaning is entirely perverted by thegentlemen. But, it is said, disputes between collectors are to bereferred to the federal courts. This is again wandering in the field ofconjecture. But suppose the fact is certain; is it not to be presumedthat they will express the true meaning of the Constitution and thelaws? Will they not be bound to consider the concurrent jurisdiction; todeclare that both the taxes shall have equal operation; that both thepowers, in that respect, are sovereign and co-extensive? If theytransgress their duty, we are to hope that they will be punished. Sir, we can reason from probabilities alone. When we leave common-sense, andgive ourselves up to conjecture, there can be no certainty, no securityin our reasonings. I imagine I have stated to the committee abundant reasons to prove theentire safety of the State governments and of the people. I would gointo a more minute consideration of the nature of the concurrentjurisdiction, and the operation of the laws in relation to revenue; butat present I feel too much indisposed to proceed. I shall, with leave ofthe committee, improve another opportunity of expressing to them morefully my ideas on this point. I wish the committee to remember that theConstitution under examination is framed upon truly republicanprinciples; and that, as it is expressly designed to provide for thecommon protection and the general welfare of the United States, it mustbe utterly repugnant to this Constitution to subvert the Stategovernments or oppress the people. JAMES MADISON, OF VIRGINIA. (BORN 1751, DIED 1836. ) ON THE EXPEDIENCY OF ADOPTING THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION--CONVENTION OFVIRGINIA, JUNE 6, 1788. MR. CHAIRMAN: In what I am about to offer to this assembly, I shall not attempt tomake impressions by any ardent professions of zeal for the publicwelfare. We know that the principles of every man will be, and ought tobe, judged not by his professions and declarations, but by his conduct. By that criterion, I wish, in common with every other member, to bejudged; and even though it should prove unfavorable to my reputation, yet it is a criterion from which I by no means would depart, nor couldif I would. Comparisons have been made between the friends of thisconstitution and those who oppose it. Although I disapprove of suchcomparisons, I trust that in everything that regards truth, honor, candor, and rectitude of motives, the friends of this system, here andin other States, are not inferior to its opponents. But professions ofattachment to the public good, and comparisons of parties, at all timesinvidious, ought not to govern or influence us now. We ought, sir, toexamine the Constitution exclusively on its own merits. We ought toinquire whether it will promote the public happiness; and its aptitudeto produce that desirable object ought to be the exclusive subject ofour researches. In this pursuit, we ought to address our arguments notto the feelings and passions, but to those understandings and judgmentswhich have been selected, by the people of this country, to decide thatgreat question by a calm and rational investigation. I hope thatgentlemen, in displaying their abilities on this occasion, will, insteadof giving opinions and making assertions, condescend to prove anddemonstrate, by fair and regular discussion. It gives me pain to heargentlemen continually distorting the natural construction of language. Assuredly, it is sufficient if any human production can stand a fairdiscussion. Before I proceed to make some additions to the reasons whichhave been adduced by my honorable friend over the way, I must take theliberty to make some observations on what was said by another gentleman(Mr. Henry). He told us that this constitution ought to be rejected, because, in his opinion, it endangered the public liberty in manyinstances. Give me leave to make one answer to that observation--let thedangers with which this system is supposed to be replete, be clearlypointed out. If any dangerous and unnecessary powers be given to thegeneral legislature, let them be plainly demonstrated, and let us notrest satisfied with general assertions of dangers, without proof, without examination. If powers be necessary, apparent danger is not asufficient reason against conceding them. He has suggested, thatlicentiousness has seldom produced the loss of liberty; but that thetyranny of rulers has almost always effected it. Since the generalcivilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of theabridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silentencroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations;but on a candid examination of history, we shall find that turbulence, violence, and abuse of power, by the majority trampling on the rights ofthe minority, have produced factions and commotions which, in republics, have, more frequently than any other cause, produced despotism. If we goover the whole history of ancient and modern republics, we shall findtheir destruction to have generally resulted from those causes. If weconsider the peculiar situation of the United States, and go to thesources of that diversity of sentiment which pervades its inhabitants, we shall find great danger to fear that the same causes may terminatehere in the same fatal effects which they produced in those republics. This danger ought to be wisely guarded against. In the progress of thisdiscussion, it will perhaps appear, that the only possible remedy forthose evils, and the only certain means of preserving and protecting theprinciples of republicanism, will be found in that very system which isnow exclaimed against as the parent of oppression. I must confess that Ihave not been able to find his usual consistency in the gentleman'sarguments on this occasion. He informs us that the people of thiscountry are at perfect repose; that every man enjoys the fruits of hislabor peaceably and securely, and that everything is in perfecttranquillity and safety. I wish sincerely, sir, this were true. But ifthis be really their situation, why has every State acknowledged thecontrary? Why were deputies from all the States sent to the generalconvention? Why have complaints of national and individual distressesbeen echoed and re-echoed throughout the continent? Why has our generalgovernment been so shamefully disgraced, and our Constitution violated?Wherefore have laws been made to authorize a change, and wherefore arewe now assembled here? A federal government is formed for the protectionof its individual members. Ours was itself attacked with impunity. Itsauthority has been boldly disobeyed and openly despised. I think Iperceive a glaring inconsistency in another of his arguments. Hecomplains of this Constitution, because it requires the consent of atleast three fourths of the States to introduce amendments which shall benecessary for the happiness of the people. The assent of so many, heconsiders as too great an obstacle to the admission of salutaryamendments, which he strongly insists ought to be at the will of a baremajority, and we hear this argument at the very moment we are calledupon to assign reasons for proposing a Constitution which puts it in thepower of nine States to abolish the present inadequate, unsafe, andpernicious confederation! In the first case, he asserts that a majorityought to have the power of altering the government, when found to beinadequate to the security of public happiness. In the last case, heaffirms that even three fourths of the community have not a right toalter a government which experience has proved to be subversive ofnational felicity; nay, that the most necessary and urgent alterationscannot be made without the absolute unanimity of all the States. Doesnot the thirteenth article of the confederation expressly require, thatno alteration shall be made without the unanimous consent of all theStates? Can any thing in theory be more perniciously improvident andinjudicious than this submission of the will of the majority to the mosttrifling minority? Have not experience and practice actually manifestedthis theoretical inconvenience to be extremely impolitic? Let me mentionone fact, which I conceive must carry conviction to the mind of anyone, --the smallest State in the Union has obstructed every attempt toreform the government; that little member has repeatedly disobeyed andcounteracted the general authority; nay, has even supplied the enemiesof its country with provisions. Twelve States had agreed to certainimprovements which were proposed, being thought absolutely necessary topreserve the existence of the general government; but as theseimprovements, though really indispensable, could not, by theconfederation, be introduced into it without the consent of every State, the refractory dissent of that little State prevented their adoption. The inconveniences resulting from this requisition of unanimousconcurrence in alterations of the confederation, must be known to everymember in this convention; it is therefore needless to remind them ofthem. Is it not self-evident, that a trifling minority ought not to bindthe majority? Would not foreign influence be exerted with facility overa small minority? Would the honorable gentleman agree to continue themost radical defects in the old system, because the petty State of RhodeIsland would not agree to remove them? He next objects to the exclusive legislation over the district where theseat of the government may be fixed. Would he submit that therepresentatives of this State should carry on their deliberations underthe control of any one member of the Union? If any State had the powerof legislation over the place where Congress should fix the generalgovernment, it would impair the dignity and hazard the safety ofCongress. If the safety of the Union were under the control of anyparticular State, would not foreign corruption probably prevail in sucha State, to induce it to exert its controlling influence over themembers of the general government? Gentlemen cannot have forgotten thedisgraceful insult which Congress received some years ago. And, sir, when we also reflect, that the previous cession of particular States isnecessary, before Congress can legislate exclusively anywhere, we must, instead of being alarmed at this part, heartily approve of it. But the honorable member sees great danger in the provision concerningthe militia. Now, sir, this I conceive to be an additional security toour liberties, without diminishing the power of the States in anyconsiderable degree; it appears to me so highly expedient, that I shouldimagine it would have found advocates even in the warmest friends of thepresent system. The authority of training the militia and appointing theofficers is reserved to the States. But Congress ought to have the powerof establishing a uniform system of discipline throughout the States;and to provide for the execution of the laws, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions. These are the only cases wherein they can interferewith the militia; and the obvious necessity of their having power overthem in these cases must flash conviction on any reflecting mind. Without uniformity of discipline, military bodies would be incapable ofaction; without a general controlling power to call forth the strengthof the Union, for the purpose of repelling invasions, the country mightbe overrun and conquered by foreign enemies. Without such a power tosuppress insurrections, our liberties might be destroyed by intestinefaction, and domestic tyranny be established. Give me leave to say something of the nature of the government, and toshow that it is perfectly safe and just to vest it with the power oftaxation. There are a number of opinions; but the principal question is, whether it be a federal or a consolidated government. In order to judgeproperly of the question before us, we must consider it minutely, in itsprincipal parts. I myself conceive that it is of a mixed nature; it is, in a manner, unprecedented. We cannot find one express prototype in theexperience of the world: it stands by itself. In some respects, it is agovernment of a federal nature; in others, it is of a consolidatednature. Even if we attend to the manner in which the Constitution isinvestigated, ratified, and made the act of the people of America, I cansay, notwithstanding what the honorable gentleman has alleged, that thisgovernment is not completely consolidated; nor is it entirely federal. Who are the parties to it? The people--not the people as composing onegreat body, but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties. Were it, as the gentleman asserts, a consolidated government, the assent of amajority of the people would be sufficient for its establishment, and asa majority have adopted it already, the remaining States would be boundby the act of the majority, even if they unanimously reprobated it. Wereit such a government as is suggested, it would be now binding on thepeople of this State, without having had the privilege of deliberatingupon it; but, sir, no State is bound by it, as it is, without its ownconsent. Should all the States adopt it, it will be then a governmentestablished by the thirteen States of America, not through theintervention of the legislatures, but by the people at large. In thisparticular respect, the distinction between the existing and proposedgovernments is very material. The existing system has been derived fromthe dependent, derivative authority of the legislatures of the States;whereas this is derived from the superior power of the people. If welook at the manner in which alterations are to be made in it, the sameidea is in some degree attended to. By the new system, a majority of theStates cannot introduce amendments; nor are all the States required forthat purpose; three fourths of them must concur in alterations; in thisthere is a departure from the federal idea. The members to the nationalHouse of Representatives are to be chosen by the people at large, inproportion to the numbers in the respective districts. When we come tothe Senate, its members are elected by the States in their equal andpolitical capacity; but had the government been completely consolidated, the Senate would have been chosen by the people, in their individualcapacity, in the same manner as the members of the other house. Thus itis of complicated nature, and this complication, I trust, will be foundto exclude the evils of absolute consolidation, as well as of a mereconfederacy. If Virginia were separated from all the States, her powerand authority would extend to all cases; in like manner, were all powersvested in the general government, it would be a consolidated government;but the powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can onlyoperate in certain cases: it has legislative powers on defined andlimited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction. But the honorable member has satirized, with peculiar acrimony, thepowers given to the general government by this Constitution. I conceivethat the first question on this subject is, whether these powers benecessary; if they be, we are reduced to the dilemma of eithersubmitting to the inconvenience, or losing the Union. Let us considerthe most important of these reprobated powers; that of direct taxationis most generally objected to. With respect to the exigencies ofgovernment, there is no question but the most easy mode of providing forthem will be adopted. When, therefore, direct taxes are not necessary, they will not be recurred to. It can be of little advantage to those inpower, to raise money in a manner oppressive to the people. To consultthe conveniences of the people, will cost them nothing, and in manyrespects will be advantageous to them. Direct taxes will only berecurred to for great purposes. What has brought on other nations thoseimmense debts, under the pressure of which many of them labor? Not theexpenses of their governments, but war. If this country should beengaged in war, (and I conceive we ought to provide for the possibilityof such a case, ) how would it be carried on? By the usual means providedfrom year to year? As our imports will be necessary for the expenses ofgovernment, and other common exigencies, how are we to carry on themeans of defence? How is it possible a war could be supported withoutmoney or credit? And would it be possible for government to have credit, without having the power of raising money? No, it would be impossiblefor any government, in such a case, to defend itself. Then, I say, sir, that it is necessary to establish funds for extraordinary exigencies, and give this power to the general government; for the utter inutilityof previous requisitions on the States is too well known. Would it bepossible for those countries, whose finances and revenues are carried tothe highest perfection, to carry on the operations of government ongreat emergencies, such as the maintenance of a war, without anuncontrolled power of raising money? Has it not been necessary for GreatBritain, notwithstanding the facility of the collection of her taxes, tohave recourse very often to this and other extraordinary methods ofprocuring money? Would not her public credit have been ruined, if it wasknown that her power to raise money was limited? Has not France beenobliged, on great occasions, to recur to unusual means, in order toraise funds? It has been the case in many countries, and no governmentcan exist unless its powers extend to make provisions for everycontingency. If we were actually attacked by a powerful nation, and ourgeneral government had not the power of raising money, but dependedsolely on requisitions, our condition would be truly deplorable: if therevenues of this commonwealth were to depend on twenty distinctauthorities, it would be impossible for it to carry on its operations. This must be obvious to every member here: I think, therefore, that itis necessary for the preservation of the Union, that this power shouldbe given to the general government. But it is urged, that its consolidated nature, joined to the power ofdirect taxation, will give it a tendency to destroy all subordinateauthority; that its increasing influence will speedily enable it toabsorb the State governments. I cannot bring myself to think that thiswill be the case. If the general government were wholly independent ofthe governments of the particular States, then indeed, usurpation mightbe expected to the fullest extent: but, sir, on whom does this generalgovernment depend? It derives its authority from these governments, andfrom the same sources from which their authority is derived. The membersof the federal government are taken from the same men from whom those ofthe State legislatures are taken. If we consider the mode in which thefederal representatives will be chosen, we shall be convinced, that thegeneral never will destroy the individual governments; and thisconviction must be strengthened by an attention to the construction ofthe Senate. The representatives will be chosen, probably under theinfluence of the State legislatures: but there is not the leastprobability that the election of the latter will be influenced by theformer. One hundred and sixty members representing this commonwealth inone branch of the legislature, are drawn from the people at large, andmust ever possess more influence than the few men who will be elected tothe general legislature. Those who wish to become federalrepresentatives, must depend on their credit with that class of men whowill be the most popular in their counties, who generally represent thepeople in the State governments: they can, therefore, never succeed inany measure contrary to the wishes of those on whom they depend. Sothat, on the whole, it is almost certain that the deliberations of themembers of the federal House of Representatives will be directed to theinterests of the people of America. As to the other branch, the Senatorswill be appointed by the legislatures, and, though elected for sixyears, I do not conceive they will so soon forget the source whence theyderive their political existence. This election of one branch of thefederal, by the State legislatures, secures an absolute independence ofthe former on the latter. The biennial exclusion of one third willlessen the facility of a combination, and preclude all likelihood ofintrigues. I appeal to our past experience, whether they will attend tothe interests of their constituent States. Have not those gentlemen whohave been honored with seats in Congress often signalized themselves bytheir attachment to their States? Sir, I pledge myself that thisgovernment will answer the expectations of its friends, and foil theapprehensions of its enemies. I am persuaded that the patriotism of thepeople will continue, and be a sufficient guard to their liberties, andthat the tendency of the Constitution will be, that the Stategovernments will counteract the general interest, and ultimatelyprevail. The number of the representatives is yet sufficient for oursafety, and will gradually increase; and if we consider their differentsources of information, the number will not appear too small. Sir, that part of the proposed Constitution which gives the generalgovernment the power of laying and collecting taxes, is indispensableand essential to the existence of any efficient, or well organizedsystem of government: if we consult reason, and be ruled by itsdictates, we shall find its justification there: if we review theexperience we have had, or contemplate the history of nations, there toowe shall find ample reasons to prove its expediency. It would bepreposterous to depend for necessary supplies on a body which is fullypossessed of the power of withholding them. If a government depends onother governments for its revenues; if it must depend on the voluntarycontributions of its members, its existence must be precarious. Agovernment that relies on thirteen independent sovereignties for themeans of its existence, is a solecism in theory, and a mere nullity inpractice. Is it consistent with reason, that such a government canpromote the happiness of any people? It is subversive of every principleof sound policy, to trust the safety of a community with a governmenttotally destitute of the means of protecting itself or its members. CanCongress, after the repeated unequivocal proofs it has experienced ofthe utter inutility and inefficacy of requisitions, reasonably expectthat they would be hereafter effectual or productive? Will not the same local interests, and other causes, militate against acompliance? Whoever hopes the contrary must for ever be disappointed. The effect, sir, cannot be changed without a removal of the cause. Leteach county in this commonwealth be supposed free and independent: letyour revenues depend on requisitions of proportionate quotas from them:let application be made to them repeatedly, and then ask yourself, is itto be presumed that they would comply, or that an adequate collectioncould be made from partial compliances? It is now difficult to collectthe taxes from them: how much would that difficulty be enhanced, wereyou to depend solely on their generosity? I appeal to the reason ofevery gentleman here, and to his candor, to say whether he is notpersuaded that the present confederation is as feeble as the governmentof Virginia would be in that case; to the same reason I appeal, whetherit be compatible with prudence to continue a government of such manifestand palpable weakness and inefficiency. II. -- CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT. Constitutional government in the United States began, in its nationalphase, with the inauguration of Washington, but the experiment was for along time a doubtful one. Of the two parties, the federal and theanti-federal parties, which had faced one another on the question of theadoption of the Constitution, the latter had disappeared. Itsconspicuous failure to achieve the fundamental object of its existence, and the evident hopelessnesss of reversing its failure in future, blotted it out of existence. There was left but one party, the federalparty; and it, strong as it appeared, was really in almost as precariousa position as its former opponent, because of the very completeness ofits success in achieving its fundamental object. Hamilton and Jefferson, two of its representative members, were opposed in almost all thepolitical instincts of their natures; the former chose the restraints ofstrong government as instinctively as the latter clung to individualism. They had been accidentally united for the time in desiring the adoptionof the Constitution, though Hamilton considered it only a temporaryshift for something stronger, while Jefferson wished for a bill ofrights to weaken the force of some of its implications. Now that theConstitution was ratified, what tie was there to hold these two to anyunited action for the future? Nothing but a shadow--the name of a partynot yet two years old. As soon, therefore, as the federal party fairlyentered upon a secure tenure of power, the divergent instincts of thetwo classes represented by Hamilton and Jefferson began to showthemselves more distinctly until there was no longer any pretence ofparty unity, and the democratic (or republican) party assumed its place, in 1792-3, as the recognized opponent of the party in power. It would bebeside the purpose to attempt to enumerate the points in which thenatural antagonism of the federalists and the republicans came to thesurface during the decade of contest which ended in the downfall of thefederal party in 1800-1. In all of them, in the struggles over theestablishment of the Bank of the United States and the assumption of theState debts, in the respective sympathy for France and Great Britain, inthe strong federalist legislation forced through during the war feelingagainst France in 1798, the controlling sympathy of the republicans forindividualism and of the federalists for a strong national government isconstantly visible, if looked for. The difficulty is that thesepermanent features are often so obscured by the temporary media in whichthey appear that the republicans are likely to be taken as a merelyState-rights party, and the federalists as a merely commercial party. To adopt either of these notions would be to take a very erroneous ideaof American political history. The whole policy of the republicans wasto forward the freedom of the individual; their leader seems to havemade all other points subordinate to this. There is hardly any point inwhich the action of the individual American has been freed fromgovernmental restraints, from ecclesiastical government, from sumptuarylaws, from restrictions on suffrage, from restrictions on commerce, production, and exchange, for which he is not indebted in some measureto the work and teaching of Jefferson between the years of 1790 and1800. He and his party found the States in existence, understood wellthat they were convenient shields for the individual against thepossible powers of the new federal government for evil, and made use ofthem. The State sovereignty of Jefferson was the product ofindividualism; that of Calhoun was the product of sectionalism. On the other hand, if Jeffersonian democracy was the representative ofall the individualistic tendencies of the later science of politicaleconomy, Hamiltonian federalism represented the necessary correctiveforce of law. It was in many respects a strong survival of colonialism. Together with some of the evil features of colonialism, its imperativedemands for submission to class government, its respect for theinterests and desires of the few, and its contempt for those of themany, it had brought into American constitutional life a very high ratioof that respect for law which alone can render the happiness andusefulness of the individual a permanent and secure possession. It wasimpossible for federalism to resist the individualistic tendency of thecountry for any length of time; it is the monument of the party that itsecured, before it fell, abiding guaranties for the security of theindividual under freedom. The genius of the federalists was largely practical. It was shown intheir masterly organization of the federal government when it was firstentrusted to their hands, an organization which has since been ratherdeveloped than disturbed in any of its parts. But the details of thework absorbed the attention of the leaders so completely that it wouldbe impossible to fix on any public address as entirely representative ofthe party. Fisher Ames' speech on the Jay treaty, which was consideredby the federalists the most effective piece of oratory in their partyhistory, has been taken as a substitute. The question was to thefederalists partly of commercial and partly of national importance. JohnJay had secured the first commercial treaty with Great Britain in 1795. It not only provided for the security of American commerce during theEuropean wars to which Great Britain was a party, and obtained thesurrender of the military posts in the present States of Ohio andMichigan; it also gave the United States a standing in the family ofnations which it was difficult to claim elsewhere while Great Britaincontinued to refuse to treat on terms of equality. The Senate thereforeratified the treaty, and it was constitutionally complete. Thedemocratic majority in the House of Representatives, objecting to thetreaty as a surrender of previous engagements with France, and as afailure to secure the rights of individuals against Great Britain, particularly in the matter of impressment, raised the point that theHouse was not bound to vote money for carrying into effect a treaty withwhich it was seriously dissatisfied. The speech of Gallatin has beenselected to represent the republican view. It is a strong reflection ofthe opposition to the Treaty. The reply of Ames is a forciblepresentation of both the national and the commercial aspects of hisparty; it had a very great influence in securing, though by a verynarrow majority, the vote of the House in favor of the appropriation. There is some difficulty in fixing on any completely representativeoration to represent the republican point of view covering this period. Gallatin's speech on the Jay Treaty together with Nicholas' argument forthe repeal of the sedition law may serve this purpose. The speech ofNicholas shows the instinctive sympathy of the party for the individualrather than for the government. It shows the force with which thissympathy drove the party into a strict construction of the Constitution. It seems also to bear the strongest internal indications that it wasinspired, if not entirely written, by the great leader of the party, Jefferson. The federalists had used the popular war feeling againstFrance in 1798, not only to press the formation of an army and a navyand the abrogation of the old and trouble-some treaties with France, butto pass the alien and sedition laws as well. The former empowered thePresident to expel from the country or imprison any alien whom he shouldconsider dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States. Thelatter forbade, under penalty of fine and imprisonment, the printing orpublishing of any "false, scandalous, or malicious writings" calculatedto bring the Government, Congress, or the President into disrepute, orto excite against them the hatred of the good people of the UnitedStates, or to stir up sedition. It was inevitable that the republicansshould oppose such laws, and that the people should support them intheir opposition. At the election of 1800, the federal party wasoverthrown, and the lost ground was never regained. With Jefferson'selection to the presidency, began the democratic period of the UnitedStates; but it has always been colored strongly and naturally by thefederal bias toward law and order. ALBERT GALLATIN, OF PENNSYLVANIA. (BORN 1761, DIED 1849. ) ON THE BRITISH TREATY --HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, APRIL 26, 1796. MR. CHAIRMAN: I will not follow some of the gentlemen who have preceded me, bydwelling upon the discretion of the legislature; a question which hasalready been the subject of our deliberations, and been decided by asolemn vote. Gentle-men who were in the minority on that question maygive any construction they please to the declaratory resolution of theHouse; they may again repeat that to refuse to carry the treaty intoeffect is a breach of the public faith which they conceive as beingpledged by the President and Senate. This has been the ground on which adifference of opinion has existed since the beginning of the discussion. It is because the House thinks that the faith of the nation cannot, onthose subjects submitted to the power of Congress, be pledged by anyconstituted authority other than the legislature, that they resolvedthat in all such cases it is their right and duty to consider theexpediency of carrying a treaty into effect. If the House think thefaith of the nation already pledged they can not claim any discretion;there is no room left to deliberate upon the expediency of the thing. The resolution now under consideration is merely "that it is expedientto carry the British treaty into effect, " and not whether we are boundby national faith to do it. I will therefore consider the question ofexpediency alone; and thinking as I do that the House has fulldiscretion on this subject, I conceive that there is as muchresponsibility in deciding in the affirmative as in rejecting theresolution, and that we shall be equally answerable for the consequencesthat may follow from either. It is true, however, that there was a great difference between thesituation of this country in the year 1794, when a negotiator wasappointed, and that in which we are at present; and that consequenceswill follow the refusal to carry into effect the treaty in its presentstage, which would not have attended a refusal to negotiate and to enterinto such a treaty. The question of expediency, therefore, assumesbefore us a different and more complex shape than when before thenegotiator, the Senate, or the President. The treaty, in itself andabstractedly considered, may be injurious; it may be such an instrumentas in the opinion of the House ought not to have been adopted by theExecutive; and yet such as it is we may think it expedient under thepresent circumstances to carry it into effect. I will therefore firsttake a view of the provisions of the treaty itself, and in the nextplace, supposing it is injurious, consider, in case it is not carriedinto effect, what will be the natural consequences of such refusal. The provisions of the treaty relate either to the adjustment of pastdifferences, or to the future intercourse of the two nations. Thedifferences now existing between Great Britain and this country aroseeither from non-execution of some articles of the treaty of peace orfrom the effects of the present European war. The complaints of GreatBritain in relation to the treaty of 1783 were confined to the legalimpediments thrown by the several States in the way of the recovery ofBritish debts. The late treaty provides adequate remedy on that subject;the United States are bound to make full and complete compensation forany losses arising from that source, and every ground of complaint onthe part of Great Britain is removed. Having thus done full justice to the other nation, America has a rightto expect that equal attention shall be paid to her claims arising frominfractions of the treaty of peace, viz. , compensation for the negroescarried away by the British; restoration of the western posts, andindemnification for their detention. On the subject of the first claim, which has been objected to asgroundless, I will observe that I am not satisfied that the constructiongiven by the British government to that article of the treaty isjustified even by the letter of the article. That construction rests onthe supposition that slaves come under the general denomination ofbooty, and are alienated the moment they fall into possession of anenemy, so that all those who were in the hands of the British when thetreaty of peace was signed, must be considered as British and not asAmerican property, and are not included in the article. It will, however, appear by recurring to Vattel when speaking of the right of"Postliminium, " that slaves cannot be considered as a part of the bootywhich is alienated by the act of capture, and that they are to be rankedrather with real property, to the profits of which only the captors areentitled. Be that as it may, there is no doubt that the constructiongiven by America is that which was understood by the parties at the timeof making the treaty. The journals of Mr. Adams, quoted by a gentlemanfrom Connecticut, Mr. Coit, prove this fully; for when he says that theinsertion of this article was alone worth the journey of Mr. Laurensfrom London, can it be supposed that he would have laid so much stresson a clause, which, according to the new construction now attempted tobe given, means only that the British would commit no new act ofhostility--would not carry away slaves at that time in possession ofAmericans? Congress recognized that construction by adopting theresolution which has been already quoted, and which was introduced uponthe motion of Mr. Alexander Hamilton; and it has not been denied thatthe British ministry during Mr. Adams' embassy also agreed to it. But when our negotiator had, for the sake of peace, waived that claim;when he had also abandoned the right which America had to demand anindemnification for the detention of the posts, although he had concededthe right of a similar nature, which Great Britain had for the detentionof debts; when he had thus given up everything which might be supposedto be of a doubtful nature, it might have been hoped that our lastclaim--a claim on which there was not and there never had been anydispute--the western posts should have been restored according to theterms of the treaty of peace. Upon what ground the British insisted, andour negotiator conceded, that this late restitution should be saddledwith new conditions, which made no part of the original contract, I amat a loss to know. British traders are allowed by the new treaty toremain within the posts without becoming citizens of the United States;and to carry on trade and commerce with the Indians living within ourboundaries without being subject to any control from our government. Invain is it said that if that clause had not been inserted we would havefound it to our interest to effect it by our own laws. Of this we arealone competent judges; if that condition is harmless at present it isnot possible to foresee whether, under future circumstances, it will notprove highly injurious; and whether harmless or not, it is not less apermanent and new condition imposed upon us. But the fact is, that bythe introduction of that clause, by obliging us to keep within ourjurisdiction, as British subjects, the very men who have been theinstruments used by Great Britain to promote Indian wars on ourfrontiers; by obliging us to suffer those men to continue their commercewith the Indians living in our territory, uncontrolled by thoseregulations which we have thought necessary in order to restrain our owncitizens in their intercourse with these tribes, Great Britain haspreserved her full influence with the Indian nations. By a restorationof the posts under that condition we have lost the greatest advantagethat was expected from their possession, viz. : future security againstthe Indians. In the same manner have the British preserved thecommercial advantages which result from the occupancy of those posts, bystipulating as a permanent condition, a free passage for their goodsacross our portages without paying any duty. Another article of the new treaty which is connected with the provisionsof the treaty of 1783 deserves consideration; I mean what relates to theMississippi. At the time when the navigation of that river to its mouthwas by the treaty of peace declared to be common to both nations, GreatBritain communicated to America a right which she held by virtue of thetreaty of 1763, and as owner of the Floridas; but since that cession tothe United States, England has ceded to Spain her claim on the Floridas, and does not own at the present time an inch of ground, either on themouth or on any part of that river. Spain now stands in the place ofGreat Britain, and by virtue of the treaty of 1783 it is to Spain andAmerica, and not to England and America, that the navigation of theMississippi is at present to be common. Yet, notwithstanding this changeof circumstances, we have repeated that article of the former treaty inthe late one, and have granted to Great Britain the additional privilegeof using our ports on the eastern side of the river, without which, asthey own no land thereon, they could not have navigated it. Nor is thisall. Upon a supposition that the Mississippi does not extend so farnorthward as to be intersected by a line drawn due west from the Lake ofthe Woods, or, in other words, upon a supposition that Great Britain hasnot a claim even to touch the Mississippi, we have agreed, not upon whatwill be the boundary line, but that we will hereafter negotiate tosettle that line. Thus leaving to future negotiation what should havebeen finally settled by the treaty itself, in the same manner as allother differences were, is calculated for the sole purpose, either oflaying the foundation of future disputes, or of recognizing a claim inGreat Britain on the waters of the Mississippi, even if their boundaryline leaves to the southward the sources of that river. Had not thatbeen the intention of Great Britain the line would have been settled atonce by the treaty, according to either of the two only rational ways ofdoing it in conformity to the treaty of 1783, that is to say, byagreeing that the line should run from the northernmost sources of theMississippi, either directly to the western extremity of the Lake of theWoods, or northwardly till it intersected the line to be drawn due westfrom that lake. But by repeating the article of the treaty of 1783; byconceding the free use of our ports on the river, and by the insertionof the fourth article, we have admitted that Great Britain, in allpossible events, has still a right to navigate that river from itssource to its mouth. What may be the future effects of these provisions, especially as they regard our intercourse with Spain, it is impossibleat present to say; but although they can bring us no advantage, they mayembroil us with that nation: and we have already felt the effect of itin our late treaty with Spain, since we were obliged, on account of thatclause of the British treaty, to accept as a gift and a favor thenavigation of that river which we had till then claimed as a right. But if, leaving commercial regulations, we shall seek in the treaty forsome provisions securing to us the free navigation of the ocean againstany future aggressions on our trade, where are they to be found? I canadd nothing to what has been said on the subject of contraband articles:it is, indeed, self-evident, that, connecting our treaty with England onthat subject with those we have made with other nations, it amounts to apositive compact to supply that nation exclusively with naval storeswhenever they may be at war. Had the list of contraband articles beenreduced--had naval stores and provisions, our two great staplecommodities, been declared not to be contra-band, security would havebeen given to the free exportation of our produce; but instead of anyprovision being made on that head, an article of a most doubtful nature, and on which I will remark hereafter, has been introduced. But I mean, for the present, to confine my observations to the important question offree bottoms making free goods. It was with the utmost astonishment thatI heard the doctrine advanced on this floor, that such a provision, ifadmitted, would prove injurious to America, inasmuch as in case of warbetween this country and any other nation, the goods of that nationmight be protected by the English flag. It is not to a state of war thatthe benefits of this provision would extend; but it is the only securitywhich neutral nations can have against the legal plundering on the highseas, so often committed by belligerent powers. It is not for the sakeof protecting an enemy's property; it is not for the sake of securing anadvantageous carrying trade; but it is in order effectually to secureourselves against sea aggressions, that this provision is necessary. Spoliations may arise from unjust orders, given by the government of abelligerent nation to their officers and cruisers, and these may beredressed by application to and negotiation with that order. But nocomplaints, no negotiations, no orders of government itself, can giveredress when those spoliations are grounded on a supposition, that thevessels of the neutral nation have an enemy's property on board, as longas such property is not protected by the flag of the neutral nation; aslong as it is liable to be captured, it is not sufficient, in order toavoid detention and capture, to have no such property on board. Everyprivateer, under pretence that he suspects an enemy's goods to be partof a cargo, may search, vex, and capture a vessel; and if in any cornerof the dominions of the belligerent power, a single judge can be foundinclined, if not determined, to condemn, at all events, before histribunal, all vessels so captured will be brought there, and the samepretence which caused the capture will justify a condemnation. The onlynation who persists in the support of this doctrine, as making part ofthe law of nations, is the first maritime power of Europe, whom theirinterest, as they are the strongest, and as there is hardly a maritimewar in which they are not involved, leads to wish for a continuation ofa custom which gives additional strength to their overbearing dominionover the seas. All the other nations have different sentiments and adifferent interest. During the American war, in the year 1780, so fullyconvinced were the neutral nations of the necessity of introducing thatdoctrine of free bottoms making free goods, that all of them, exceptingPortugal, who was in a state of vassalage to, and a mere appendage of, Great Britain, united in order to establish the principle, and formedfor that purpose the alliance known by the name of the armed neutrality. All the belligerent powers, except England, recognized and agreed to thedoctrine. England itself was obliged, in some measure, to give, for awhile, a tacit acquiescence. America, at the time, fully admitted theprinciple, although then at war. Since the year 1780, every nation, so far as my knowledge goes, hasrefused to enter into a treaty of commerce with England, unless thatprovision was inserted. Russia, for that reason, would not renew theirtreaty, which had expired in 1786; although I believe that, during thepresent war, and in order to answer the ends of the war, they formed atemporary convention, which I have not seen, but which, perhaps, doesnot include that provision. England consented to it in her treaty withFrance, in 1788, and we are the first neutral nation who has abandonedthe common cause, given up the claim, and by a positive declarationinserted in our treaty, recognized the contrary doctrine. It has beensaid that, under the present circumstances, it could not be expectedthat Great Britain would give up the point; perhaps so; but theobjection is not, that our negotiator has not been able to obtain thatprinciple, but that he has consented to enter into a treaty of commercewhich we do not want, and which has no connection with an adjustment ofour differences with Great Britain, without the principle contended formaking part of that treaty. Unless we can obtain security for ournavigation, we want no treaty; and the only provision which can give usthat security, should have been the _sine qua non_ of a treaty. On thecontrary, we have disgusted all the other neutral nations of Europe, without whose concert and assistance there is but little hope that weshall ever obtain that point; and we have taught Great Britain that weare disposed to form the most intimate connections with her, even at theexpense of recognizing a principle the most fatal to the liberty ofcommerce and to the security of our navigation. But, if we could not obtain anything which might secure us againstfuture aggressions, should we have parted, without receiving anyequivalent, with those weapons of self-defence, which, although theycould not repel, might, in some degree, prevent any gross attacks uponour trade--any gross violation of our rights as a neutral nation? Wehave no fleet to oppose or to punish the insults of Great Britain; but, from our commercial relative situation, we have it in our power torestrain her aggressions, by restrictions on her trade, by a totalprohibition of her manufactures, or by a sequestration of the debts dueto her. By the treaty, not satisfied with receiving nothing, notsatisfied with obtaining no security for the future, we have, of our ownaccord, surrendered those defensive arms, for fear they might be abusedby ourselves. We have given up the two first, for the whole time duringwhich we might want them most, the period of the present war; and thelast, the power of sequestration, we have abandoned for ever: everyother article of the treaty of commerce is temporary; this perpetual. I shall not enter into a discussion of the immorality of sequesteringprivate property. What can be more immoral than war; or plundering onthe high seas, legalized under the name of privateering? Yetself-defence justifies the first, and the necessity of the case may, atleast in some instances, and where it is the only practicable mode ofwarfare left to a nation, apologize even for the last. In the samemanner, the power of sequestration may be resorted to, as the lastweapon of self-defence, rather than to seek redress by an appeal toarms. It is the last peace measure that can be taken by a nation; butthe treaty, by declaring, that in case of national differences it shallnot be resorted to, has deprived us of the power of judging of itspropriety, has rendered it an act of hostility, and has effectuallytaken off that restraint, which a fear of its exercise laid upon GreatBritain. Thus it appears that by the treaty we have promised full compensation toEngland for every possible claim they may have against us, that we haveabandoned every claim of a doubtful nature, and that we have consentedto receive the posts, our claim to which was not disputed, under newconditions and restrictions never before contemplated; that after havingobtained by those concessions an adjustment of past differences, we haveentered into a new agreement, unconnected with those objects, which haveheretofore been subjects of discussion between the two nations; and thatby this treaty of commerce and navigation, we have obtained nocommercial advantage which we did not enjoy before, we have obtained nosecurity against future aggressions, no security in favor of the freedomof our navigation, and we have parted with every pledge we had in ourhands, with every power of restriction, with every weapon ofself-defence which is calculated to give us any security. From the review I have taken of the treaty, and the opinions I haveexpressed, it is hardly necessary for me to add, that I look upon theinstrument as highly injurious to the interests of the United States, and that I earnestly wish it never had been made; but whether in itspresent stage the House ought to refuse to carry it into effect, andwhat will be the probable consequences of a refusal, is a question whichrequires the most serious attention, and which I will now attempt toinvestigate. Should the treaty be finally defeated, either new negotiations will bemore successful or Great Britain will refuse to make a new arrangement, and leave things in the situation in which they now are, or war will bethe consequence. I will, in the course of my observations, make someremarks on the last supposition. I do not think that the first will bevery probable at present, and I am of opinion that, under the presentcircumstances, and until some change takes place in our own or in therelative political situation of the European nations, it is to beapprehended that, in such a case, new negotiations will either berejected or prove unsuccessful. Such an event might have perhapsfollowed a rejection of the treaty even by the Senate or by thePresident. After the negotiator employed by the United States had onceaffixed his signature it must have become very problematical, unless hehad exceeded his powers, whether a refusal to sanction the contract hehad made would not eventually defeat, at least for a time, the prospectof a new treaty. I conceive that the hopes of obtaining betterconditions by a new negotiation are much less in the present stage ofthe business than they were when the treaty was in its inchoate formbefore the Executive; and in order to form a just idea of theconsequences of a rejection at present, I will contemplate them uponthis supposition, which appears to me most probable, to wit, that no newtreaty will take place for a certain period of time. In mentioning my objections to the treaty itself, I have already statedthe advantages which in my opinion would result to the United Statesfrom the non-existence of that instrument; I will not repeat, butproceed at once to examine what losses may accrue that can be set offagainst those advantages. The further detention of the posts, the national stain that will resultfrom receiving no reparation for the spoliations on our trade, and theuncertainty of a final adjustment of our differences with Great Britain, are the three evils which strike me as resulting from a rejection of thetreaty; and when to those considerations I add that of the presentsituation of this country, of the agitation of the public mind, and ofthe advantages that will arise from union of sentiments, howeverinjurious and unequal I conceive the treaty to be, however repugnant itmay be to my feelings, and perhaps to my prejudices, I feel induced tovote for it, and will not give my assent to any proposition which willimply its rejection. But the conduct of Great Britain since the treatywas signed, the impressment of our seamen, and their uninterruptedspoliations on our trade, especially by seizing our vessels laden withprovisions, a proceeding which they may perhaps justify by one of thearticles of the treaty, are such circumstances as may induce us to pauseawhile, in order to examine whether it is proper, immediately andwithout having obtained any explanation thereon, to adopt the resolutionon the table, and to pass, at present, all the laws necessary to carrythe treaty into effect. Whatever evils may follow a rejection of the treaty, they will notattend a postponement. To suspend our proceedings will not throw us intoa situation which will require new negotiations, new arrangements on thepoints already settled and well understood by both parties. It will bemerely a delay, until an explanation of the late conduct of the Britishtowards us may be obtained, or until that conduct may be altered. If, onthe contrary, we consent to carry the treaty into effect, under thepresent circumstances, what will be our situation in future? It is bycommitting the most wanton and the most unprovoked aggressions on ourtrade; it is by seizing a large amount of our property as a pledge forour good behavior, that Great Britain has forced the nation into thepresent treaty. If by threatening new hostilities, or rather bycontinuing her aggressions, even after the treaty is made, she can forceus also to carry it into effect, our acquiescence will be tantamount toa declaration that we mean to submit in proportion to the insults thatare offered to us; and this disposition being once known, what securityhave we against new insults, new aggressions, new spoliations, whichprobably will lay the foundation of some additional sacrifices on ours?It has been said, and said with truth, that to put up with theindignities we have received without obtaining any reparation, whichwill probably be the effect of defeating the treaty, is highlydishonorable to the nation. In my opinion it is still more so not only tamely to submit to acontinuation of these national insults, but while they thus continueuninterrupted, to carry into effect the instrument we have consented toaccept as a reparation for former ones. When the general conduct ofGreat Britain towards us from the beginning of the present war isconsidered; when the means by which she has produced the treaty arereflected on, a final compliance on our part while she still persists inthat conduct, whilst the chastening rod of that nation is still heldover us, is in my opinion a dereliction of national interest, ofnational honor, of national independence. But it is said, that war must be the consequence of our delaying tocarry the treaty into effect. Do the gentlemen mean, that if we rejectthe treaty, if we do not accept the reparation there given to us, inorder to obtain redress, we have no alternative left but war? If we mustgo to war in order to obtain reparation for insults and spoliations onour trade, we must do it, even if we carry the present treaty intoeffect; for this treaty gives us no reparation for the aggressionscommitted since it was ratified, has not produced a discontinuance ofthose acts of hostility, and gives us no security that they shall bediscontinued. But the arguments of those gentlemen, who suppose thatAmerica must go to war, apply to a final rejection of the treaty, andnot to a delay. I do not propose to refuse the reparation offered by thetreaty, and to put up with the aggressions committed; I have agreed thatthat reparation, such as it is, is a valuable article of the treaty; Ihave agreed, that under the present circumstances, a greater evil willfollow a total rejection of, than an acquiescence in, the treaty. Theonly measure which has been mentioned, in preference to the one nowunder discussion, is a suspension, a postponement, whilst the presentspoliations continue, in hopes to obtain for them a similar reparation, and assurances that they shall cease. But is it meant to insinuate that it is the final intention of those whopretend to wish only for a postponement, to involve this country in awar? There has been no period during the present European war, at whichit would not have been equally weak and wicked to adopt such measures asmust involve America in the contest, unless forced into it for the sakeof self-defence; but, at this time, to think of it would fall but littleshort of madness. The whole American nation would rise in opposition tothe idea; and it might at least have been recollected, that war can notbe declared, except by Congress, and that two of the branches ofgovernment are sufficient to check the other in any supposed attempt ofthis kind. If there is no necessity imposed upon America to go to war, if there isno apprehension she will, by her own conduct, involve herself in one, the danger must arise from Great Britain, and the threat is, that shewill make war against us if we do not comply. Gentlemen first tell usthat we have made the best possible bargain with that nation; that shehas conceded everything, without receiving a single iota in return, andyet they would persuade us, that she will make war against us in orderto force us to accept that contract so advantageous to us, and soinjurious to herself. It will not be contended that a delay, until anamicable explanation is obtained, could afford even a pretence to GreatBritain for going to war; and we all know that her own interest wouldprevent her. If another campaign takes place, it is acknowledged, thatall her efforts are to be exerted against the West Indies. She hasproclaimed her own scarcity of provisions at home, and she must dependon our supplies to support her armament. It depends upon us to defeather whole scheme, and this is a sufficient pledge against openhostility, if the European war continues. If peace takes place, therewill not be even the appearance of danger; the moment when a nation ishappy enough to emerge from one of the most expensive, bloody, anddangerous wars in which she ever has been involved, will be the last shewould choose to plunge afresh into a similar calamity. But to the cry of war, the alarmists do not fail to add that ofconfusion; and they have declared, even on this floor, that if theresolution is not adopted government will be dissolved. Governmentdissolved in case a postponement takes place! The idea is too absurd todeserve a direct answer. But I will ask those gentlemen, by whom isgovernment to be dissolved? Certainly not by those who may vote againstthe resolution; for although they are not perhaps fortunate enough tohave obtained the confidence of the gentlemen who voted against them, still it must be agreed, that those who succeed in their wishes, whodefeat a measure they dislike, will not wish to destroy that government, which they hold so far in their hands as to be able to carry their ownmeasures. For them to dissolve government, would be to dissolve theirown power. By whom, then, I again ask, is the government to bedissolved? The gentlemen must answer--by themselves--or they mustdeclare that they mean nothing but to alarm. Is it really the languageof those men, who profess to be, who distinguish themselves by theself-assumed appellation of friends to order, that if they do notsucceed in all their measures they will overset government--and have alltheir professions been only a veil to hide their love of power, apretence to cover their ambition? Do they mean, that the first eventwhich shall put an end to their own authority shall be the last act ofgovernment? As to myself, I do not believe that they have suchintentions; I have too good an opinion of their patriotism to allowmyself to admit such an idea a single moment; but I think myselfjustifiable in entertaining a belief, that some amongst them, in orderto carry a favorite, and what they think to be an advantageous measure, mean to spread an alarm which they do not feel; and I have no doubt, that many have contracted such a habit of carrying every measure ofgovernment as they please, that they really think that every thing mustbe thrown into confusion the moment they are thwarted in a matter ofimportance. I hope that experience will in future cure their fears. But, at all events, be the wishes and intentions of the members of this Housewhat they may, it is not in their power to dissolve the government. Thepeople of the United States, from one end of the continent to the other, are strongly attached to their Constitution; they would restrain andpunish the excesses of any party, of any set of men in government, whowould be guilty of the attempt; and on them I will rest as a fullsecurity against every endeavor to destroy our Union, our Constitution, or our government. If the people of the United States wish this House to carry the treatyinto effect immediately, and notwithstanding the continued aggressionsof the British, if their will was fairly and fully expressed, I wouldimmediately acquiesce; but since an appeal has been made to them, it isreasonable to suspend a decision until their sentiments are known. Tillthen I must follow my own judgment; and as I cannot see that anypossible evils will follow a delay, I shall vote against the resolutionbefore the committee, in order to make room, either for that proposed bymy colleague, Mr. Maclay, or for any other, expressed in any mannerwhatever, provided it embraces the object I have in view, to wit, thesuspension of the final vote--a postponement of the laws necessary tocarry the treaty into effect, until satisfactory assurances are obtainedthat Great Britain means, in future, to show us that friendlydisposition which it is my earnest wish may at all times be cultivatedby America towards all other nations. FISHER AMES, OF MASSACHUSETTS. (BORN 1758, DIED 1808. ) ON THE BRITISH TREATY, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, APRIL 28, 1796. It would be strange, that a subject, which has aroused in turn all thepassions of the country, should be discussed without the interference ofany of our own. We are men, and therefore not exempt from thosepassions; as citizens and representatives, we feel the interests thatmust excite them. The hazard of great interests cannot fail to agitatestrong passions. We are not disinterested; it is impossible we should bedispassionate. The warmth of such feelings may becloud the judgment, and, for a time, pervert the understanding. But the public sensibility, and our own, has sharpened the spirit of inquiry, and given an animationto the debate. The public attention has been quickened to mark theprogress of the discussion, and its judgment, often hasty and erroneouson first impressions, has become solid and enlightened at last. Ourresult will, I hope, on that account, be safer and more mature, as wellas more accordant with that of the nation. The only constant agents inpolitical affairs are the passions of men. Shall we complain of ournature--shall we say that man ought to have been made otherwise? It isright already, because He, from whom we derive our nature, ordained itso; and because thus made and thus acting, the cause of truth and thepublic good is more surely promoted. The treaty is bad, fatally bad, is the cry. It sacrifices the interest, the honor, the independence of the United States, and the faith of ourengagements to France. If we listen to the clamor of party intemperance, the evils are of a number not to be counted, and of a nature not to beborne, even in idea. The language of passion and exaggeration maysilence that of sober reason in other places, it has not done it here. The question here is, whether the treaty be really so very fatal as tooblige the nation to break its faith. I admit that such a treaty oughtnot to be executed. I admit that self-preservation is the first law ofsociety, as well as of individuals. It would, perhaps, be deemed anabuse of terms to call that a treaty, which violates such a principle. Iwaive also, for the present, any inquiry, what departments shallrepresent the nation, and annul the stipulations of a treaty. I contentmyself with pursuing the inquiry, whether the nature of this compact besuch as to justify our refusal to carry it into effect. A treaty is thepromise of a nation. Now, promises do not always bind him that makesthem. But I lay down two rules, which ought to guide us in this case. The treaty must appear to be bad, not merely in the petty details, butin its character, principle, and mass. And in the next place, this oughtto be ascertained by the decided and general concurrence of theenlightened public. I confess there seems to be something very like ridicule thrown over thedebate by the discussion of the articles in detail. The undecided pointis, shall we break our faith? And while our country and enlightenedEurope, await the issue with more than curiosity, we are employed togather piecemeal, and article by article, from the instrument, ajustification for the deed by trivial calculations of commercial profitand loss. This is little worthy of the subject, of this body, or of thenation. If the treaty is bad, it will appear to be so in its mass. Evilto a fatal extreme, if that be its tendency, requires no proof; itbrings it. Extremes speak for themselves and make their own law. What ifthe direct voyage of American ships to Jamaica with horses or lumber, might net one or two per centum more than the present trade to Surinam;would the proof of the fact avail any thing in so grave a question asthe violation of the public engagements? Why do they complain, that the West Indies are not laid open? Why dothey lament, that any restriction is stipulated on the commerce of theEast Indies? Why do they pretend, that if they reject this, and insistupon more, more will be accomplished? Let us be explicit--more would notsatisfy. If all was granted, would not a treaty of amity with GreatBritain still be obnoxious? Have we not this instant heard it urgedagainst our envoy, that he was not ardent enough in his hatred of GreatBritain? A treaty of amity is condemned because it was not made by afoe, and in the spirit of one. The same gentleman, at the same instant, repeats a very prevailing objection, that no treaty should be made withthe enemy of France. No treaty, exclaim others, should be made with amonarch or a despot; there will be no naval security while thosesea-robbers domineer on the ocean; their den must be destroyed; thatnation must be extirpated. I like this, sir, because it is sincerity. With feelings such as these, we do not pant for treaties. Such passions seek nothing, and will becontent with nothing, but the destruction of their object. If a treatyleft King George his island, it would not answer; not if he stipulatedto pay rent for it. It has been said, the world ought to rejoice ifBritain was sunk in the sea; if where there are now men and wealth andlaws and liberty, there was no more than a sand bank for sea monsters tofatten on; a space for the storms of the ocean to mingle in conflict. What is patriotism? Is it a narrow affection for the spot where a manwas born? Are the very clods where we tread entitled to this ardentpreference because they are greener? No, sir, this is not the characterof the virtue, and it soars higher for its object. It is an extendedself-love, mingling with all the enjoyments of life, and twisting itselfwith the minutest filaments of the heart. It is thus we obey the laws ofsociety, because they are the laws of virtue. In their authority we see, not the array of force and terror, but the venerable image of ourcountry's honor. Every good citizen makes that honor his own, andcherishes it not only as precious, but as sacred. He is willing to riskhis life in its defence, and is conscious that he gains protection whilehe gives it. For, what rights of a citizen will be deemed inviolablewhen a state renounces the principles that constitute their security? Orif his life should not be invaded, what would its enjoyments be in acountry odious in the eyes of strangers and dishonored in his own? Couldhe look with affection and veneration to such a country as his parent?The sense of having one would die within him; he would blush for hispatriotism, if he retained any, and justly, for it would be a vice. Hewould be a banished man in his native land. I see no exception to therespect that is paid among nations to the law of good faith. If thereare cases in this enlightened period when it is violated, there are nonewhen it is decried. It is the philosophy of politics, the religion ofgovernments. It is observed by barbarians--a whiff of tobacco smoke, ora string of beads, gives not merely binding force but sanctity totreaties. Even in Algiers, a truce may be bought for money, but whenratified, even Algiers is too wise, or too just, to disown and annul itsobligation. Thus we see, neither the ignorance of savages, nor theprinciples of an association for piracy and rapine, permit a nation todespise its engagements. If, sir, there could be a resurrection from thefoot of the gallows, if the victims of justice could live again, collecttogether and form a society, they would, however loath, soon findthemselves obliged to make justice, that justice under which they fell, the fundamental law of their state. They would perceive, it was theirinterest to make others respect, and they would therefore soon pay somerespect themselves, to the obligations of good faith. It is painful, I hope it is superfluous, to make even the supposition, that America should furnish the occasion of this opprobrium. No, let menot even imagine, that a republican government, sprung, as our own is, from a people enlightened and uncorrupted, a government whose origin isright, and whose daily discipline is duty, can, upon solemn debate, makeits option to be faithless--can dare to act what despots dare not avow, what our own example evinces, the states of Barbary are unsuspected of. No, let me rather make the supposition, that Great Britain refuses toexecute the treaty, after we have done every thing to carry it intoeffect. Is there any language of reproach pungent enough to express yourcommentary on the fact? What would you say, or rather what would you notsay? Would you not tell them, wherever an Englishman might travel, shamewould stick to him--he would disown his country. You would exclaim, England, proud of your wealth, and arrogant in the possession ofpower--blush for these distinctions, which become the vehicles of yourdishonor. Such a nation might truly say to corruption, thou art myfather, and to the worm, thou art my mother and my sister. We should sayof such a race of men, their name is a heavier burden than their debt. The refusal of the posts (inevitable if we reject the treaty) is ameasure too decisive in its nature to be neutral in its consequences. From great causes we are to look for great effects. A plain and obviousone will be, the price of the Western lands will fall. Settlers will notchoose to fix their habitation on a field of battle. Those who talk somuch of the interest of the United States, should calculate how deeplyit will be affected by rejecting the treaty; how vast a tract of wildland will almost cease to be property. This loss, let it be observed, will fall upon a fund expressly devoted to sink the national debt. Whatthen are we called upon to do? However the form of the vote and theprotestations of many may disguise the proceeding, our resolution is insubstance, and it deserves to wear the title of a resolution to preventthe sale of the Western lands and the discharge of the public debt. Will the tendency to Indian hostilities be contested by any one?Experience gives the answer. The frontiers were scourged with war tillthe negotiation with Great Britain was far advanced, and then the stateof hostility ceased. Perhaps the public agents of both nations areinnocent of fomenting the Indian war, and perhaps they are not. We oughtnot, however, to expect that neighboring nations, highly irritatedagainst each other, will neglect the friendship of the savages; thetraders will gain an influence and will abuse it; and who is ignorantthat their passions are easily raised, and hardly restrained fromviolence? Their situation will oblige them to choose between thiscountry and Great Britain, in case the treaty should be rejected. Theywill not be our friends, and at the same time the friends of ourenemies. But am I reduced to the necesity of proving this point? Certainly thevery men who charged the Indian war on the detention of the posts, willcall for no other proof than the recital of their own speeches. It isremembered with what emphasis, with what acrimony, they expatiated onthe burden of taxes, and the drain of blood and treasure into theWestern country, in consequence of Britain's holding the posts. Untilthe posts are restored, they exclaimed, the treasury and the frontiersmust bleed. If any, against all these proofs, should maintain that the peace withthe Indians will be stable without the posts, to them I urge anotherreply. From arguments calculated to produce conviction, I will appealdirectly to the hearts of those who hear me, and ask, whether it is notalready planted there? I resort especially to the convictions of theWestern gentlemen, whether supposing no posts and no treaty, thesettlers will remain in security? Can they take it upon them to say, that an Indian peace, under these circumstances, will prove firm? No, sir, it will not be peace, but a sword; it will be no better than a lureto draw victims within the reach of the tomahawk. On this theme my emotions are unutterable. If I could find words forthem, if my powers bore any proportion to my zeal, I would swell myvoice to such a note of remonstrance, it should reach every log-housebeyond the mountains. I would say to the inhabitants, wake from yourfalse security; your cruel dangers, your more cruel apprehensions aresoon to be renewed; the wounds, yet unhealed, are to be torn open again;in the daytime, your path through the woods will be ambushed; thedarkness of midnight will glitter with the blaze of your dwellings. Youare a father--the blood of your sons shall fatten your cornfield; youare a mother--the war-whoop shall wake the sleep of the cradle. On this subject you need not suspect any deception on your feelings. Itis a spectacle of horror, which cannot be overdrawn. If you have naturein your hearts, it will speak a language, compared with which all I havesaid or can say will be poor and frigid. Will it be whispered that the treaty has made me a new champion for theprotection of the frontiers? It is known that my voice as well as votehave been uniformly given in conformity with the ideas I have expressed. Protection is the right of the frontiers; it is our duty to give it. Who will accuse me of wandering out of the subject? Who will say that Iexaggerate the tendencies of our measures? Will any one answer by asneer, that all this is idle preaching? Will any one deny, that we arebound, and I would hope to good purpose, by the most solemn sanctions ofduty for the vote we give? Are despots alone to be reproached forunfeeling indifference to the tears and blood of their subjects? Havethe principles on which you ground the reproach upon cabinets and kingsno practical influence, no binding force? Are they merely themes of idledeclamation introduced to decorate the morality of a newspaper essay, orto furnish petty topics of harangue from the windows of thatstate-house? I trust it is neither too presumptuous nor too late to ask. Can you put the dearest interest of society at risk without guilt andwithout remorse. It is vain to offer as an excuse, that public men are not to bereproached for the evils that may happen to ensue from their measures. This is very true where they are unforeseen or inevitable. Those I havedepicted are not unforeseen; they are so far from inevitable, we aregoing to bring them into being by our vote. We choose the consequences, and become as justly answerable for them as for the measures that weknow will produce them. By rejecting the posts we light the savage fires--we bind the victims. This day we undertake to render account to the widows and orphans whomour decision will make, to the wretches that will be roasted at thestake, to our country, and I do not deem it too serious to say, toconscience and to God. We are answerable, and if duty be any thing morethan a word of imposture, if conscience be not a bug-bear, we arepreparing to make ourselves as wretched as our country. There is no mistake in this case--there can be none. Experience hasalready been the prophet of events, and the cries of future victims havealready reached us. The Western inhabitants are not a silent anduncomplaining sacrifice. The voice of humanity issues from the shade oftheir wilderness. It exclaims that, while one hand is held up to rejectthis treaty, the other grasps a tomahawk. It summons our imagination tothe scenes that will open. It is no great effort of the imagination toconceive that events so near are already begun. I can fancy that Ilisten to the yells of savage vengeance, and the shrieks of torture. Already they seem to sigh in the west wind-already they mingle withevery echo from the mountains. It is not the part of prudence to be inattentive to the tendencies ofmeasures. Where there is any ground to fear that these will provepernicious, wisdom and duty forbid that we should underrate them. If wereject the treaty, will our peace be as safe as if we executed it withgood faith? I do honor to the intrepid spirits of those who say it will. It was formerly understood to constitute the excellence of a man's faithto believe without evidence and against it. But, as opinions on this article are changed, and we are called to actfor our country, it becomes us to explore the dangers that will attendits peace, and to avoid them if we can. Is there any thing in the prospect of the interior state of the countryto encourage us to aggravate the dangers of a war? Would not the shockof that evil produce another, and shake down the feeble and thenunbraced structure of our government? Is this a chimera? Is it going offthe ground of matter of fact to say, the rejection of the appropriationproceeds upon the doctrine of a civil war of the departments? Twobranches have ratified a treaty, and we are going to set it aside. Howis this disorder in the machine to be rectified? While it exists itsmovements must stop, and when we talk of a remedy, is that any otherthan the formidable one of a revolutionary one of the people? And isthis, in the judgment even of my opposers, to execute, to preserve theconstitution and the public order? Is this the state of hazard, if notof convulsion, which they can have the courage to contemplate and tobrave, or beyond which their penetration can reach and see the issue?They seem to believe, and they act as if they believed, that our union, our peace, our liberty, are invulnerable and immortal--as if our happystate was not to be disturbed by our dissentions, and that we are notcapable of falling from it by our unworthiness. Some of them have, nodoubt, better nerves and better discernment than mine. They can see thebright aspects and the happy consequences of all this array of horrors. They can see intestine discords, our government disorganized, our wrongsaggravated, multiplied, and unredressed, peace with dishonor, or warwithout justice, union, or resources, in "the calm lights of mildphilosophy. " But whatever they may anticipate as the next measure of prudence andsafety, they have explained nothing to the house. After rejecting thetreaty, what is to be the next step? They must have foreseen what oughtto be done; they have doubtless resolved what to propose. Why then arethey silent? Dare they not avow their plan of conduct, or do they waittill our progress toward confusion shall guide them in forming it? Let me cheer the mind, weary, no doubt, and ready to despond on thisprospect, by presenting another, which it is yet in our power torealize. Is it possible for a real American to look at the prosperity ofthis country without some desire for its continuance--without somerespect for the measures which, many will say, produced, and all willconfess, have preserved, it? Will he not feel some dread that a changeof system will reverse the scene? The well-grounded fears of ourcitizens in 1794 were removed by the treaty, but are not forgotten. Thenthey deemed war nearly inevitable, and would not this adjustment havebeen considered, at that day, as a happy escape from the calamity? Thegreat interest and the general desire of our people, was to enjoy theadvantages of neutrality. This instrument, however misrepresented, affords America that inestimable security. The causes of our disputesare either cut up by the roots, or referred to a new negotiation afterthe end of the European war. This was gaining everything, because itconfirmed our neutrality, by which our citizens are gaining everything. This alone would justify the engagements of the government. For, whenthe fiery vapors of the war lowered in the skirts of our horizon, allour wishes were concentred in this one, that we might escape thedesolation of the storm. This treaty, like a rainbow on the edge of thecloud, marked to our eyes the space where it was raging, and afforded, at the same time, the sure prognostic of fair weather. If we reject it, the vivid colors will grow pale, --it will be a baleful meteor portendingtempest and war. Let us not hesitate, then, to agree to the appropriation to carry itinto faithful execution. Thus we shall save the faith of our nation, secure its peace, anddiffuse the spirit of confidence and enterprise that will augment itsprosperity. The progress of wealth and improvement is wonderful, and, some will think, too rapid. The field for exertion is fruitful and vast, and if peace and good government should be preserved, the acquisitionsof our citizens are not so pleasing as the proofs of their industry--asthe instruments of their future success. The rewards of exertion go toaugment its power. Profit is every hour becoming capital. The vast cropof our neutrality is all seed-wheat, and is sown again to swell, almostbeyond calculation, the future harvest of prosperity. And in thisprogress, what seems to be fiction is found to fall short of experience. I rose to speak under impressions that I would have resisted if I could. Those who see me will believe that the reduced state of my health hasunfitted me, almost equally for much exertion of body or mind. Unprepared for debate, by careful reflection in my retirement, or bylong attention here, I thought the resolution I had taken to sit silent, was imposed by necesity, and would cost me no effort to maintain. With amind thus vacant of ideas, and sinking, as I really am, under a sense ofweakness, I imagined the very desire of speaking was extinguished by thepersuasion that I had nothing to say. Yet, when I come to the moment ofdeciding the vote, I start back with dread from the edge of the pit intowhich we are plunging. In my view, even the minutes I have spent inexpostulation have their value, because they protract the crisis, andthe short period in which alone we may resolve to escape it. I have thus been led, by my feelings, to speak more at length than Iintended. Yet I have, perhaps, as little personal interest in the eventas any one here. There is, I believe, no member who will not think hischance to be a witness of the consequences greater than mine. If, however, the vote shall pass to reject, and a spirit should rise, as itwill, with the public disorders, to make confusion worse confounded, even I, slender and almost broken as my hold upon life is, may outlivethe government and constitution of my country. JOHN NICHOLAS ON THE PROPOSED REPEAL OF THE SEDITION LAW --HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FEB. 25, 1799 MR. CHAIRMAN: The Select Committee had very truly stated that only the second andthird sections of the act are complained of; that the part of the lawwhich punishes seditious acts is acquiesced in, and that the part whichgoes to restrain what are called seditious writings is alone the objectof the petitions. This part of the law is complained of as beingunwarranted by the Constitution, and destructive of the first principlesof republican government. It is always justifiable, in examining theprinciple of a law, to inquire what other laws can be passed with equalreason, and to impute to it all the mischiefs for which it may be usedas a precedent. In this case, little inquiry is left for us to make, the arguments infavor of the law carrying us immediately and by inevitable consequenceto absolute power over the press. It is not pretended that the Constitution has given any expressauthority, which they claim, for passing this law, and it is claimedonly as implied in that clause of the Constitution which says: "Congressshall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and properfor carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powersvested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, orin any department or officer thereof. " It is clear that this clause wasintended to be merely an auxiliary to the powers specially enumerated inthe Constitution; and it must, therefore, be so construed as to aidthem, and at the same time to leave the boundaries between the GeneralGovernment and the State governments untouched. The argument by whichthe Select Committee have endeavored to establish the authority ofCongress over the press is the following: "Congress has power to punishseditious combinations to resist the laws, and therefore Congress musthave the power to punish false, scandalous, and malicious writings;because such writings render the Administration odious and contemptibleamong the people, and by doing so have a tendency to produce oppositionto the laws. " To make it support the construction of the committee, itshould say that "Congress shall have power over all acts which arelikely to produce acts which hinder the execution of, " etc. Ourconstruction confines the power of Congress to such acts as immediatelyinterfere with the execution of the enumerated powers of Congress, because the power can only be necessary as well as proper when the actswould really hinder the execution. The construction of the committeeextends the power of Congress to all acts which have a relation, ever somany degrees removed, to the enumerated powers, or rather to the actswhich would hinder their execution. By our construction, theConstitution remains defined and limited, according to the plain intentand meaning of its framers; by the construction of the committee, alllimitation is lost, and it may be extended over the different actions oflife as speculative politicians may think fit. What has a greatertendency to fit men for insurrection and resistance to government thandissolute, immoral habits, at once destroying love of order, anddissipating the fortune which gives an interest in society? The doctrinethat Congress can punish any act which has a tendency to hinder theexecution of the laws, as well as acts which do hinder it, will, therefore, clearly entitle them to assume a general guardianship overthe morals of the people of the United States. Again, nothing can have agreater tendency to ensure obedience to law, and nothing can be morelikely to check every propensity to resistance to government, thanvirtuous and wise education; therefore Congress must have power tosubject all the youth of the United States to a certain system ofeducation. It would be very easy to connect every sort of authority usedby any government with the well-being of the General Government, andwith as much reason as the committee had for their opinion, to assignthe power to Congress, although the consequence must be the prostrationof the State governments. But enough has been said to show the necessity of adhering to the commonmeaning of the word "necessary" in the clause under consideration, whichis, that the power to be assumed must be one without which some one ofthe enumerated powers cannot exist or be maintained. It cannot escapenotice, however, that the doctrine contended for, that theAdministration must be protected against writings which are likely tobring it into contempt, as tending to opposition, will apply with moreforce to truth than falsehood. It cannot be denied that the discovery ofmaladministration will bring more lasting discredit on the government ofa country than the same charges would if untrue. This is not an alarmfounded merely on construction, for the governments which have exercisedcontrol over the press have carried it the whole length. This isnotoriously the law of England, whence this system has been drawn; forthere truth and falsehood are alike subject to punishment, if thepublication brings contempt on the officers of government. The law has been current by the fair pretence of punishing nothing butfalsehood, and by holding out to the accused the liberty of proving thetruth of the writing; but it was from the first apprehended, and itseems now to be adjudged (the doctrine has certainly been asserted onthis floor), that matters of opinion, arising on notorious facts, comeunder the law. If this is the case, where is the advantage of the lawrequiring that the writing should be false before a man shall be liableto punishment, or of his having the liberty of proving the truth of hiswriting? Of the truth of facts there is an almost certain test; thebelief of honest men is certain enough to entitle it to greatconfidence; but their opinions have no certainty at all. The trial ofthe truth of opinions, in the best state of society, would be altogetherprecarious; and perhaps a jury of twelve men could never be found toagree in any one opinion. At the present moment, when, unfortunately, opinion is almost entirely governed by prejudice and passion, it may bemore decided, but nobody will say it is more respectable. Chance mustdetermine whether political opinions are true or false, and it will notunfrequently happen that a man will be punished for publishing opinionswhich are sincerely his, and which are of a nature to be extremelyinteresting to the public, merely because accident or design hascollected a jury of different sentiments. Is the power claimed proper for Congress to possess? It is believed not, and this will readily be admitted if it can be proved, as I think itcan, that the persons who administer the government have an interest inthe power to be confided opposed to that of the community. It must beagreed that the nature of our government makes a diffusion of knowledgeof public affairs necessary and proper, and that the people have no modeof obtaining it but through the press. The necessity for their havingthis information results from its being their duty to elect all theparts of the Government, and, in this way, to sit in judgment over theconduct of those who have been heretofore employed. The most importantand necessary information for the people to receive is that of themisconduct of the Government, because their good deeds, although theywill produce affection and gratitude to public officers, will onlyconfirm the existing confidence, and will, therefore, make no change inthe conduct of the people. The question, then, whether the Governmentought to have control over the persons who alone can give informationthroughout a country is nothing more than this, whether men, interestedin suppressing information necessary for the people to have, ought to beentrusted with the power, or whether they ought to have a power whichtheir personal interest leads to the abuse of. I am sure no candid manwill hesitate about the answer; and it may also safely be left withingenuous men to say whether the misconduct which we sometimes see inthe press had not better be borne with, than to run the risk ofconfiding the power of correction to men who will be constantly urged bytheir own feelings to destroy its usefulness. How long can it bedesirable to have periodical elections for the purpose of judging of theconduct of our rulers, when the channels of information may be choked attheir will? But, sir, I have ever believed this question as settled by an amendmentto the Constitution, proposed with others for declaring and restrictingits powers, as the preamble declares, at the request of several of theStates, made at the adoption of the Constitution, in order to preventtheir misconstruction and abuse. This amendment is in the followingwords: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment ofreligion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging thefreedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceablyto assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "There can be no doubt about the effect of this amendment, unless the"freedom of the press" means something very different from what itseems; or unless there was some actual restraint upon it, under theConstitution of the United States, at the time of the adoption of thisamendment, commensurate with that imposed by this law. Both areasserted, viz. , that the "freedom of the press" has a defined, limitedmeaning, and that the restraints of the common law were in force underthe United States, and are greater than those of the act of Congress, and that, therefore, either way the "freedom of the press" is notabridged. It is asserted by the select committee, and by everybody who has gonebefore them in this discussion, that the "freedom of the press, "according to the universally received acceptation of the expression, means only an exemption from all previous restraints on publication, butnot an exemption from any punishment Government pleases to inflict forwhat is published. This definition does not at all distinguish betweenpublications of different sorts, but leaves all to the regulation of thelaw, only forbidding Government to interfere until the publication isreally made. The definition, if true, so reduces the effect of theamendment that the power of Congress is left unlimited over theproductions of the press, and they are merely deprived of one mode ofrestraint. The amendment was certainly intended to produce some limitation tolegislative discretion, and it must be construed so as to produce suchan effect, if it is possible. To give it such a construction as willbring it to a mere nullity would violate the strongest injunctions ofcommon-sense and decorum, and yet that appears to me to be the effect ofthe construction adopted by the committee. The effect of the amendment, say the committee, is to prevent Government taking the press from itsowner; but how is their power lessened by this, when they may take theprinter from his press and imprison him for any length of time, forpublishing what they choose to prohibit, although it maybe ever soproper for public information? The result is that Government may forbidany species of writing, true as well as false, to be published; mayinflict the heaviest punishments they can devise for disobedience, andyet we are very gravely assured that this is the "freedom of the press. " A distinction is very frequently relied on between the freedom and thelicentiousness of the press, which it is proper to examine. This seemsto me to refute every other argument which is used on this subject; itamounts to an admission that there are some acts of the press whichCongress ought not to have power to restrain, and that by the amendmentthey are prohibited to restrain these acts. Nov, to justify any act ofCongress, they ought to show the boundary between what is prohibited andwhat is permitted, and that the act is not within the prohibited class. The Constitution has fixed no such boundary, therefore they can pretendto no power over the press, without claiming the right of defining whatis freedom and what is licentiousness, and that would be to claim aright which would defeat the Constitution; for every Congress would havethe same right, and the freedom of the press would fluctuate accordingto the will of the legislature. This is, therefore, only a new mode ofclaiming absolute power over the press. It is said there is a common law which makes part of the law of theUnited States, which restrained the press more than the act of Congresshas done, and that therefore there is no abridgment of its freedom. Whatthis common law is I cannot conceive, nor have I seen anybody who couldexplain himself when he was talking of it. It certainly is not a commonlaw of the United States, acquired, as that of England was, byimmemorial usage. The standing of the Government makes this impossible. It cannot be a code of laws adopted because they were universally in usein the States, for the States had no uniform code; and, if they had, itcould hardly become, by implication, part of the code of a Government oflimited powers, from which every thing is expressly retained which isnot given. Is it the law of England, at any particular period, which isadopted? But the nature of the law of England makes it impossible thatit should have been adopted in the lump into such a Government as thisis, because it was a complete system for the management of all theaffairs of a country. It regulated estates, punished all crimes, and, inshort, went to all things for which laws were necessary. But how wasthis law adopted? Was it by the Constitution? If so, it is immutable andincapable of amendment. In what part of the Constitution is it declaredto be adopted? Was it adopted by the courts? From whom do they derivetheir authority? The Constitution, in the clause first cited, relies onCongress to pass all laws necessary to enable the courts to carry theirpowers into execution; it cannot, therefore, have been intended to givethem a power not necessary to their declared powers. There does not seemto me the smallest pretext for so monstrous an assumption; on thecontrary, while the Constitution is silent about it, every fairinference is against it. Upon the whole, therefore, I am fully satisfied that no power is givenby the Constitution to control the press, and that such laws areexpressly prohibited by the amendment. I think it inconsistent with thenature of our Government that its administration should have power torestrain animadversions on public measures, and for protection fromprivate injury from defamation the States are fully competent. It is tothem that our officers must look for protection of persons, estates, andevery other personal right; and, therefore, I see no reason why it isnot proper to rely upon it for defence against private libels. THE RISE OF DEMOCRACY. The inaugural address of President Jefferson has been given the firstplace under this period, notwithstanding the fact that it was not at allan oration. The inaugural addresses of presidents Washington and Adamswere really orations, although written, depending for much of theireffect on the personal presence of him who delivered the address; thatof Jefferson was altogether a business document, sent to be read by thetwo houses of Congress for their information, and without any of theadjuncts of the orator. It is impossible, nevertheless, to spare the inaugural address of thefirst Democratic President, for it is pervaded by a personality which, if quieter in its operation, was more potent in results than the mostburning eloquence could have been. The spirit of modern democracy, whichhas become, for good or evil, the common characteristic of all Americanparties and leaders, was here first put into living words. Triumphant innational politics, this spirit now had but one field of struggle, thepolitics of the States, and here its efforts were for years bent to theabolition of every remnant of limitation on individual liberty. Outsideof New England, the change was accomplished as rapidly as the forms oflaw could be put into the necessary direction; remnants ofecclesiastical government, ecclesiastical taxes of even the mildestdescription, restrictions on manhood suffrage, State electoral systems, were the immediate victims of the new spirit, and the first term of Mr. Jefferson saw most of the States under democratic governments. Inside ofNew England, the change was stubbornly resisted, and, for a time, withsuccess. For about twenty years, the general rule was that New Englandand Delaware were federalist, and the rest of the country wasdemocratic. But even in New England, a strong democratic minority wasgrowing up, and about 1820 the last barriers of federalism gave way;Connecticut, the federalist "land of steady habits, " accepted a new anddemocratic constitution; Massachusetts modified hers; and the new andreliably democratic State of Maine was brought into existence. The "eraof good feeling" signalized the extinction of the federal party and theuniversal reign of democracy. The length of this period of contest isthe strongest testimony to the stubbornness of the New England fibre. Estimated by States, the success of democracy was about as complete in1803 as in 1817; but it required fifteen years of persistent struggle toconvince the smallest section of the Union that it was hopelesslydefeated. The whole period was a succession of great events. The acquisition ofLouisiana, stretching from the Mississippi to the Rocky Mountains, laid, in 1803, the foundations of that imperial domain which the steamboat andrailroad were to convert to use in after-years. The continental empireof Napoleon and the island empire of Great Britain drifted into astruggle for life or death which hardly knew a breathing space until thelast charge at Waterloo, and from the beginning it was conducted by bothcombatants with a reckless disregard of international public opinion andneutral rights which is hardly credible but for the official records. Every injury inflicted on neutral commerce by one belligerent waspromptly imitated or exceeded by the other, and the two were perfectlyin accord in insisting on the convenient doctrine of international law, that, unless neutral rights were enforced by the neutral against onebelligerent, the injury became open to the imitation of the other. Inthe process of imitation, each belligerent took care to pass at least alittle beyond the precedent; and thus, beginning with a paper blockadeof the northern coast of the continent by the British Government, theprocess advanced, by alternate "retaliations, " to a British proclamationspecifying the ports of the world to which American vessels were to beallowed to trade, stopping in England or its dependencies to pay taxesen route. These two almost contemporary events, the acquisition ofLouisiana and the insolent pretensions of the European belligerents, were the central points of two distinct influences which bore stronglyon the development of the United States. The dominant party, the republicans, had a horror of a national debtwhich almost amounted to a mania. The associations of the term, derivedfrom their reading of English history, all pointed to a condition ofaffairs in which the rise of a strong aristocracy was inevitable; and, to avoid the latter, they were determined to pay off the former. Thepayment for Louisiana precluded, in their opinion, the support of arespectable navy; and the remnants of colonialism in their partypredisposed them to adopt an ostrich policy instead. The Embargo act waspassed in 1807, forbidding all foreign commerce. The evident failure ofthis act to influence the belligerents brought about its repeal in 1809, and the substitution of the Non-intercourse act. This prohibitedcommercial intercourse with England and France until either shouldrevoke its injurious edicts. Napoleon, by an empty and spuriousrevocation in 1810, induced Congress to withdraw the act in respect toFrance, keeping it alive in respect to England. England refused to admitthe sincerity of the French revocation, to withdraw her Orders inCouncil, or to cease impressing American seamen. The choice left to theUnited States was between war and submission. The federalist leaders saw that, while their party strength was confinedto a continually decreasing territory, the opposing democracy not onlyhad gained the mass of the original United States, but was swarmingtoward and beyond the Mississippi. They dropped to the level of a mereparty of opposition; they went further until the only article of theirpolitical creed was State sovereignty; some of them went one stepfurther, and dabbled in hopeless projects for secession and the formationof a New England republic of five States. It is difficult to perceiveany advantage to public affairs in the closing years of the federalparty, except that, by impelling the democratic leaders to reallynational acts and sympathies, it unwittingly aided in the development ofnationality from democracy. If the essential characteristic of colonialism is the sense ofdependence and the desire to imitate, democracy, at least in its earlierphases, begets the opposite qualities. The Congressional elections of1810-11 showed that the people had gone further in democracy than theirleaders. "Submission men" were generally defeated in the election; newleaders, like Clay, Calhoun, and Crawford, made the dominant party a warparty, and forced the President into their policy; and the war of 1812was begun. Its early defeats on land, its startling successes at sea, its financial straits, the desperation of the contest after the fall ofNapoleon, and the brilliant victory which crowned its close, allcombined to raise the national feeling to the highest pitch; and thefederalists, whose stock object of denunciation was "Mr. Madison's war, "though Mr. Madison was about the most unwilling participant in it, cameout of it under the ban of every national sympathy. The speech of Mr. Quincy, in many points one of the most eloquent of ourpolitical history, will show the brightest phase of federalism at itslowest ebb. One can hardly compare it with that of Mr. Clay, whichfollows it, without noticing the national character of the latter, ascontrasted with the lack of nationality of the former. It seems, also, that Mr. Clay's speech carries, in its internal characteristics, sufficient evidence of the natural forces which tended to make democracya national power, and not a mere adjunct of State sovereignty, whereverthe oblique influence of slavery was absent. For this reason, it hasbeen taken as a convenient introduction to the topic which follows, theRise of Nationality. THOMAS JEFFERSON, OF VIRGINIA, (BORN 1743, DIED 1826. ) INAUGURAL ADDRESS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON, AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITEDSTATES, MARCH 4, 1801 FRIENDS AND FELLOW-CITIZENS: Called upon to undertake the duties of the first executive office of ourcountry, I avail myself of the presence of that portion of myfellow-citizens which is here assembled, to express my grateful thanksfor the favor with which they have been pleased to look toward me, todeclare a sincere consciousness, that the task is above my talents, andthat I approach it with those anxious and awful presentiments, which thegreatness of the charge, and the weakness of my powers, so justlyinspire. A rising nation, spread over a wide and fruitful land, traversing all the seas with the rich productions of their industry, engaged in commerce with nations who feel power and forget right, advancing rapidly to destinies beyond the reach of mortal eye; when Icontemplate these transcendent objects, and see the honor, thehappiness, and the hopes of this beloved country committed to the issueand the auspices of this day, I shrink from the contemplation, andhumble myself before the magnitude of the undertaking. Utterly, indeed, should I despair, did not the presence of many, whom I see here, remindme, that, in the other high authorities provided by our Constitution, Ishall find resources of wisdom, of virtue, and of zeal, on which to relyunder all difficulties. To you, then, gentlemen, who are charged withthe sovereign functions of legislation, and to those associated withyou, I look with encouragement for that guidance and support which mayenable us to steer with safety the vessel in which we are all embarked, amidst the conflicting elements of a troubled world. During the contest of opinion through which we have passed, theanimation of discussions and of exertions has sometimes worn an aspectwhich might impose on strangers unused to think freely, and to speak andto write what they think; but this being now decided by the voice of thenation, announced according to the rules of the Constitution, all willof course arrange themselves under the will of the law, and unite incommon efforts for the common good. All too will bear in mind thissacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all casesto prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that theminority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, andto violate which would be oppression. Let us then, fellow-citizens, unite with one heart and one mind, let us restore to social intercoursethat harmony and affection without which liberty and even life itselfare but dreary things. And let us reflect, that having banished from ourland that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled andsuffered, we have yet gained little, if we countenance a politicalintolerance, as despotic, as wicked, and as capable of as bitter andbloody persecutions. During the throes and convulsions of the ancientworld, during the agonizing spasms of infuriated man, seeking throughblood and slaughter his long-lost liberty, it was not wonderful that theagitation of the billows should reach even this distant and peacefulshore; that this should be more felt and feared by some, and less byothers, and should divide opinions as to measures of safety; but everydifference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have calledby different names brethren of the same principle. We are allRepublicans; we are all Federalists. If there be any among us who wishto dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them standundisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion maybe tolerated, where reason is left free to combat it. I know, indeed, that some honest men fear that a republican government cannot be strong;that this government is not strong enough. But would the honest patriot, in the full tide of successful experiment, abandon a government whichhas so far kept us free and firm, on the theoretic and visionary fear, that this government, the world's best hope, may, by possibility, wantenergy to preserve itself? I trust not. I believe this, on the contrary, the strongest government on earth. I believe it the only one where everyman, at the call of the law, would fly to the standard of the law, andwould meet invasions of the public order as his own personal concern. Sometimes it is said, that man cannot be trusted with the government ofhimself. Can he then be trusted with the government of others? Or, havewe found angels in the form of kings, to govern him? Let history answerthis question. Let us then, with courage and confidence, pursue our own federal andrepublican principles; our attachment to union and representativegovernment. Kindly separated by nature and a wide ocean from theexterminating havoc of one quarter of the globe; too high-minded toendure the degradation of the others, possessing a chosen country, withroom enough for our descendants to the thousandth and thousandthgeneration, entertaining a due sense of our equal right to the use ofour own faculties, to the acquisition of our own industry, to honor andconfidence from our fellow-citizens, resulting not from birth, but fromour actions and their sense of them, enlightened by a benign religion, professed indeed and practised in various forms, yet all of theminculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man, acknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence, which, by all itsdispensations, proves that it delights in the happiness of man here, andhis greater happiness hereafter; with all these blessings, what more isnecessary to make us a happy and prosperous people? Still one thingmore, fellow-citizens, a wise and frugal government, which shallrestrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise freeto regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shallnot take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is thesum of good government; and this is necessary to close the circle of ourfelicities. About to enter, fellow-citizens, upon the exercise of duties whichcomprehend every thing dear and valuable to you, it is proper you shouldunderstand what I deem the essential principles of our government, andconsequently, those which ought to shape its administration. I willcompress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating thegeneral principle, but not all its limitations. Equal and exact justiceto all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political;peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entanglingalliances with none; the support of the State governments in all theirrights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns, and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies; thepreservation of the general government in its whole constitutionalvigor, as the sheet-anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad; ajealous care of the right of election by the people, a mild and safecorrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution wherepeaceable remedies are unprovided; absolute acquiescence in thedecisions of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from whichthere is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediateparent of despotism; a well-disciplined militia, our best reliance inpeace, and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them;the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; economy in thepublic expense, that labor may be lightly burdened; the honest paymentof our debts, and sacred preservation of the public faith; encouragementof agriculture, and of commerce as its handmaid; the diffusion ofinformation, and arraignment of all abuses at the bar of the publicreason; freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom ofperson, under the protection of the _habeas corpus_, and trial by juriesimpartially selected. These principles form the bright constellation, which has gone before us, and guided our steps through an age ofrevolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages, and blood of ourheroes, have been devoted to their attainment; they should be the creedof our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone bywhich to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander fromthem in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace oursteps, and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, andsafety. I repair, then, fellow-citizens, to the post you have assigned me. Withexperience enough in subordinate offices to have seen the difficultiesof this, the greatest of all, I have learned to expect that it willrarely fall to the lot of imperfect man, to retire from this stationwith the reputation and the favor which bring him into it. Withoutpretensions to that high confidence you reposed in our first andgreatest revolutionary character, whose pre-eminent services hadentitled him to the first place in his country's love, and destined forhim the fairest page in the volume of faithful history, I ask so muchconfidence only as may give firmness and effect to the legaladministration of your affairs. I shall often go wrong through defect ofjudgment. When right, I shall often be thought wrong by those whosepositions will not command a view of the whole ground. I ask yourindulgence for my own errors, which will never be intentional; and yoursupport against the errors of others, who may condemn what they wouldnot, if seen in all its parts. The approbation implied by your suffrage, is a great consolation to me for the past; and my future solicitude willbe, to retain the good opinion of those who have bestowed it in advance, to conciliate that of others, by doing them all the good in my power, and to be instrumental to the happiness and freedom of all. Relying then on the patronage of your good-will, I advance withobedience to the work, ready to retire from it whenever you becomesensible how much better choices it is in your power to make. And maythat infinite Power which rules the destinies of the universe, lead ourcouncils to what is best, and give them a favorable issue for your peaceand prosperity. JOHN RANDOLPH, --OF VIRGINIA' (BORN 1773, DIED 1833. ) ON THE MILITIA BILL--HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, DEC. 10, 1811. MR. SPEAKER: This is a question, as it has been presented to this House, of peace orwar. In that light it has been argued; in no other light can I considerit, after the declarations made by members of the Committee of ForeignRelations. The Committee of Foreign Relations have, indeed, decided that thesubject of arming the militia (which has been pressed upon them asindispensable to the public security) does not come within the scope oftheir authority. On what ground, I have been, and still am, unable tosee, they have felt themselves authorized to recommend the raising ofstanding armies, with a view (as has been declared) of immediate war--awar not of defence, but of conquest, of aggrandizement, of ambition--awar foreign to the interests of this country; to the interests ofhumanity itself. * * * I cannot refrain from smiling at the liberality of the gentleman ingiving Canada to New York in order to strengthen the northern balance ofpower; while, at the same time, he forewarns her that the western scalemust preponderate. I can almost fancy that I see the Capitol in motiontoward the falls of Ohio; after a short sojourn, taking its flight tothe Mississippi, and finally alighting at Darien; which, when thegentleman's dreams are realized, will be a most eligible seat ofgovernment for the new republic (or empire) of the two Americas! But itseems that in 1808 we talked and acted foolishly, and to give some colorof consistency to that folly we must now commit a greater. I hope we shall act a wise part; take warning by our follies since wehave become sensible of them, and resolve to talk and act foolishly nomore. It is, indeed, high time to give over such preposterous languageand proceedings. This war of conquest, a war for the acquisition ofterritory and subjects, is to be a new commentary on the doctrine thatrepublicans are destitute of ambition; that they are addicted to peace, wedded to the happiness and safety of the great body of their people. But it seems this is to be a holiday campaign; there is to be no expenseof blood, or of treasure on our part; Canada is to conquer herself; sheis to be subdued by the principles of fraternity! The people of thatcountry are first to be seduced from their allegiance and converted intotraitors, as preparatory to making them good citizens! Although I mustacknowledge that some of our flaming patriots were thus manufactured, Ido not think the process would hold good with a whole community. It is adangerous experiment. We are to succeed in the French mode, by thesystem of fraternization--all is French. But how dreadfully it might beretorted on the southern and western slave-holding States. I detest thissubornation of treason. No; if we must have them, let them fall by thevalor of our arms; by fair, legitimate conquest; not become the victimsof treacherous seduction. I am not surprised at the war spirit which is manifesting itself ingentlemen from the South. In the year 1805-6, in a struggle for thecarrying trade of belligerent colonial produce, this country was mostunwisely brought into collision with the great powers of Europe. By aseries of most impolitic and ruinous measures, utterly incomprehensibleto every rational, sober-minded man, the Southern planters, by their ownvotes, have succeeded in knocking down the price of cotton to sevencents, and of tobacco (a few choice crops excepted) to nothing; and inraising the price of blankets (of which a few would not be amiss in aCanadian campaign), coarse woollens, and every article of firstnecessity, three or four hundred per centum. And now, that by our ownacts, we have brought ourselves into this unprecedented condition, wemust get out of it in any way, but by an acknowledgment of our own wantof wisdom and forecast. But is war the true remedy? Who will profit byit? Speculators; a few lucky merchants, who draw prizes in the lottery;commissaries and contractors. Who must suffer by it? The people. It istheir blood, their taxes that must flow to support it. I am gratified to find gentlemen acknowledging the demoralizing anddestructive consequences of the non-importation law; confessing thetruth of all that its opponents foretold, when it was enacted. And willyou plunge yourselves in war, because you have passed a foolish andruinous law, and are ashamed to repeal it? But our good friend, theFrench emperor, stands in the way of its repeal, and we cannot go toofar in making sacrifices to him, who has given such demonstration of hislove for the Americans; we must, in point of fact, become parties to hiswar. Who can be so cruel as to refuse him that favor? My imaginationshrinks from the miseries of such a connection. I call upon the House toreflect, whether they are not about to abandon all reclamation for theunparalleled outrages, "insults, and injuries" of the French government;to give up our claim for plundered millions; and I ask what reparationor atonement they can expect to obtain in hours of future dalliance, after they shall have made a tender of their person to this greatdeflowerer of the virginity of republics. We have, by our own wise (Iwill not say wiseacre) measures, so increased the trade and wealth ofMontreal and Quebec, that at last we begin to cast a wistful eye atCanada. Having done so much toward its improvement, by the exercise of"our restrictive energies, " we begin to think the laborer worthy of hishire, and to put in a claim for our portion. Suppose it ours, are we anynearer to our point? As his minister said to the king of Epirus, "May wenot as well take our bottle of wine before as after this exploit?" Gomarch to Canada! leave the broad bosom of the Chesapeake and her hundredtributary rivers; the whole line of sea-coast from Machias to St. Mary's, unprotected! You have taken Quebec--have you conquered England?Will you seek for the deep foundations of her power in the frozendeserts of Labrador? "Her march is on the mountain wave, Her home is on the deep!" Will you call upon her to leave your ports and harbors untouched onlyjust till you can return from Canada, to defend them? The coast is to beleft defenceless, while men of the interior are revelling in conquestand spoil. * * * No sooner was the report laid on the table, than the vultures wereflocking around their prey--the carcass of a great militaryestablishment. Men of tainted reputation, of broken fortune (if theyever had any), and of battered constitutions, "choice spirits tired ofthe dull pursuits of civil life, " were seeking after agencies andcommissions, willing to doze in gross stupidity over the public fire; tolight the public candle at both ends. Honorable men undoubtedly thereare ready to serve their country; but what man of spirit, or ofself-respect, will accept a commission in the present army? Thegentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Grundy) addressed himself yesterdayexclusively to the "Republicans of the House. " I know not whether I mayconsider myself as entitled to any part of the benefit of the honorablegentleman's discourse. It belongs not, however, to that gentleman todecide. If we must have an exposition of the doctrines of republicanism, I shall receive it from the fathers of the church, and not from thejunior apprentices of the law. I shall appeal to my worthy friends fromCarolina (Messrs. Macon and Stanford), "men with whom I have measured mystrength, " by whose side I have fought during the reign of terror; forit was indeed an hour of corruption, of oppression, of pollution. It wasnot at all to my taste--that sort of republicanism which was supported, on this side of the Atlantic, by the father of the sedition law, JohnAdams, and by Peter Porcupine on the other. Republicanism! of John Adamsand William Cobbett! * * * Gallant crusaders in the holy cause of republicanism. Such republicanismdoes, indeed, mean any thing or nothing. Our people will not submit tobe taxed for this war of conquest and dominion. The government of theUnited States was not calculated to wage offensive foreign war; it wasinstituted for the common defence and the general welfare; and whosoevershould embark it in a war of offence, would put it to a test which it isby no means calculated to endure. Make it out that Great Britain hasinstigated the Indians on a late occasion, and I am ready for battle, but not for dominion. I am unwilling, however, under presentcircumstances, to take Canada, at the risk of the Constitution, toembark in a common cause with France, and be dragged at the wheels ofthe car of some Burr or Bonaparte. For a gentleman from Tennessee, orGenesee, or Lake Champlain, there may be some prospect of advantage. Their hemp would bear a great price by the exclusion of foreign supply. In that, too, the great importers are deeply interested. The uppercountry of the Hudson and the lakes would be enriched by the suppliesfor the troops, which they alone could furnish. They would have theexclusive market; to say nothing of the increased preponderance from theacquisition of Canada and that section of the Union, which the Southernand Western States have already felt so severely in the Apportionmentbill. * * * Permit me now, sir, to call your attention to the subject of our blackpopulation. I will touch this subject as tenderly as possible. It iswith reluctance that I touch it at all; but in cases of great emergency, the State physician must not be deterred by a sickly, hystericalhumanity, from probing the wound of his patient; he must not be withheldby a fastidious and mistaken delicacy from representing his truesituation to his friends, or even to the sick man himself, when theoccasion calls for it. What is the situation of the slave-holdingStates? During the war of the Revolution, so fixed were their habits ofsubordination, that while the whole country was overrun by the enemy, who invited them to desert, no fear was ever entertained of aninsurrection of the slaves. During a war of seven years, with ourcountry in possession of the enemy, no such danger was ever apprehended. But should we, therefore, be unobservant spectators of the progress ofsociety within the last twenty years; of the silent but powerful changewrought, by time and chance, upon its composition and temper? When thefountains of the great deep of abomination were broken up, even the poorslaves did not escape the general deluge. The French Revolution haspolluted even them. * * * Men, dead to the operation of moral causes, have taken away from thepoor slave his habit of loyalty and obedience to his master, whichlightened his servitude by a double operation; beguiling his own caresand disarming his master's suspicions and severity; and now, like trueempirics in politics, you are called upon to trust to the mere physicalstrength of the fetter which holds him in bondage. You have deprived himof all moral restraint; you have tempted him to eat of the fruit of thetree of knowledge, just enough to perfect him in wickedness; you haveopened his eyes to his nakedness; you have armed his nature against thehand that has fed, that has clothed him, that has cherished him insickness; that hand which before he became a pupil of your school, hehad been accustomed to press with respectful affection. You have doneall this--and then show him the gibbet and the wheel, as incentives to asullen, repugnant obedience. God forbid, sir, that the Southern Statesshould ever see an enemy on their shores, with these infernal principlesof French fraternity in the van. While talking of taking Canada, some ofus are shuddering for our own safety at home. I speak from facts, when Isay, that the night-bell never tolls for fire in Richmond, that themother does not hug her infant more closely to her bosom. I have been awitness of some of the alarms in the capital of Virginia. * * * Against whom are these charges brought? Against men, who in the war ofthe Revolution were in the councils of the nation, or fighting thebattles of your country. And by whom are they made? By runaways chieflyfrom the British dominions, since the breaking out of the Frenchtroubles. It is insufferable. It cannot be borne. It must and ought, with severity, to be put down in this House; and out of it to meet thelie direct. We have no fellow-feeling for the suffering and oppressedSpaniards! Yet even them we do not reprobate. Strange! that we shouldhave no objection to any other people or government, civilized orsavage, in the whole world! The great autocrat of all the Russiasreceives the homage of our high consideration. The Dey of Algiers andhis divan of pirates are very civil, good sort of people, with whom wefind no difficulty in maintaining the relations of peace and amity. "Turks, Jews, and infidels"; Melimelli or the Little Turtle; barbariansand savages of every clime and color, are welcome to our arms. Withchiefs of banditti, negro or mulatto, we can treat and trade. Name, however, but England, and all our antipathies are up in arms againsther. Against whom? Against those whose blood runs in our veins; incommon with whom, we claim Shakespeare, and Newton, and Chatham, for ourcountrymen; whose form of government is the freest on earth, our ownonly excepted; from whom every valuable principle of our owninstitutions has been borrowed: representation, jury trial, voting thesupplies, writ of habeas corpus, our whole civil and criminaljurisprudence; against our fellow Protestants, identified in blood, inlanguage, in religion, with ourselves. In what school did the worthiesof our land, the Washingtons, Henrys, Hancocks, Franklins, Rutledges ofAmerica, learn those principles of civil liberty which were so noblyasserted by their wisdom and valor? American resistance to Britishusurpation has not been more warmly cherished by these great men andtheir compatriots; not more by Washington, Hancock, and Henry, than byChatham and his illustrious associates in the British Parliament. Itought to be remembered, too, that the heart of the English people waswith us. It was a selfish and corrupt ministry, and their servile tools, to whom we were not more opposed than they were. I trust that none suchmay ever exist among us; for tools will never be wanting to subserve thepurposes, however ruinous or wicked, of kings and ministers of state. Iacknowledge the influence of a Shakespeare and a Milton upon myimagination, of a Locke upon my understanding, of a Sidney upon mypolitical principles, of a Chatham upon qualities which, would to God Ipossessed in common with that illustrious man! of a Tillotson, aSherlock, and a Porteus upon my religion. This is a British influencewhich I can never shake off. I allow much to the just and honestprejudices growing out of the Revolution. But by whom have they beensuppressed, when they ran counter to the interests of my country? ByWashington. By whom, would you listen to them, are they most keenlyfelt? By felons escaped from the jails of Paris, Newgate, andKilmainham, since the breaking out of the French Revolution; who, inthis abused and insulted country, have set up for political teachers, and whose disciples give no other proof of their progress inrepublicanism, except a blind devotion to the most ruthless militarydespotism that the world ever saw. These are the patriots, who scruplenot to brand with the epithet of Tory, the men (looking toward the seatof Col. Stewart) by whose blood your liberties have been cemented. Theseare they, who hold in such keen remembrance the outrages of the Britisharmies, from which many of them are deserters. Ask these self-styledpatriots where they were during the American war (for they are, for themost part, old enough to have borne arms), and you strike them dumb;their lips are closed in eternal silence. If it were allowable toentertain partialities, every consideration of blood, language, religion, and interest, would incline us toward England: and yet, shallthey alone be extended to France and her ruler, whom we are bound tobelieve a chastening God suffers as the scourge of a guilty world! Onall other nations he tramples; he holds them in contempt; England alonehe hates; he would, but he cannot, despise her; fear cannot despise; andshall we disparage our ancestors? But the outrages and injuries of England--bred up in the principles ofthe Revolution--I can never palliate, much less defend them. I wellremember flying, with my mother and her new-born child, from Arnold andPhilips; and we were driven by Tarleton and other British Pandours frompillar to post, while her husband was fighting the battles of hiscountry. The impression is indelible on my memory; and yet (like myworthy old neighbor, who added seven buckshot to every cartridge at thebattle of Guilford, and drew fine sight at his man) I must be content tobe called a Tory by a patriot of the last importation. Let us not getrid of one evil (supposing it possible) at the expense of a greater;_mutatis mutandis_, suppose France in possession of the British navalpower--and to her the trident must pass should England be unable towield it--what would be your condition? What would be the situation ofyour seaports, and their seafaring inhabitants? Ask Hamburg, Lubec! AskSavannah! * * * Shall republicans become the instruments of him who has effaced thetitle of Attila to the "scourge of God!" Yet, even Attila, in thefalling fortunes of civilization, had, no doubt, his advocates, histools, his minions, his parasites, in the very countries that heoverran; sons of that soil whereon his horse had trod; where grass couldnever after grow. If perfectly fresh, instead of being as I am, mymemory clouded, my intellect stupefied, my strength and spiritsexhausted, I could not give utterance to that strong detestation which Ifeel toward (above all other works of the creation) such characters asGengis, Tamerlane, Kouli-Khan, or Bonaparte. My instincts involuntarilyrevolt at their bare idea. Malefactors of the human race, who haveground down man to a mere machine of their impious and bloody ambition!Yet under all the accumulated wrongs, and insults, and robberies of thelast of these chieftains, are we not, in point of fact, about to becomea party to his views, a partner in his wars? * * * I call upon those professing to be republicans to make good thepromises, held out by their republican predecessors, when they came intopower; promises which, for years afterward, they honestly, faithfullyfulfilled. We have vaunted of paying off the national debt, ofretrenching useless establishments; and yet have now become asinfatuated with standing armies, loans, taxes, navies, and war as everwere the Essex Junto! ADMISSION OF LOUISIANA. JOSIAH QUINCY, --OF MASSACHUSETTS. ' (BORN 1772, DIED 1864. ) ON THE ADMISSION OF LOUISIANA--HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JAN. 14, 1811. MR. SPEAKER: I address you, sir, with anxiety and distress of mind, with me, whollyunprecedented. The friends of this bill seem to consider it as theexercise of a common power; as an ordinary affair; a mere municipalregulation, which they expect to see pass without other questions thanthose concerning details. But, sir, the principle of this billmaterially affects the liberties and rights of the whole people of theUnited States. To me it appears that it would justify a revolution inthis country; and that, in no great length of time it may produce it. When I see the zeal and perseverance with which this bill has been urgedalong its parliamentary path, when I know the local interests andassociated projects which combine to promote its success, all oppositionto it seems manifestly unavailing. I am almost tempted to leave, withouta struggle, my country to its fate. But, sir, while there is life, thereis hope. So long as the fatal shaft has not yet sped, if Heaven so will, the bow may be broken and the vigor of the mischief-meditating armwithered. If there be a man in this House or nation, who cherishes theConstitution, under which we are assembled, as the chief stay of hishope, as the light which is destined to gladden his own day, and tosoften even the gloom of the grave, by the prospects it sheds over hischildren, I fall not behind him in such sentiments. I will yield to noman in attachment to this Constitution, in veneration for the sages wholaid its foundations, in devotion to those principles which form itscement and constitute its proportions. What then must be my feelings;what ought to be the feelings of a man, cherishing such sentiments, whenhe sees an act contemplated which lays ruin at the foot of all thesehopes? When he sees a principle of action about to be usurped, beforethe operation of which the bands of this Constitution are no more thanflax before the fire, or stubble before the whirlwind? When this billpasses, such an act is done; and such a principle is usurped. Mr. Speaker, there is a great rule of human conduct, which he whohonestly observes, cannot err widely from the path of his sought duty. It is, to be very scrupulous concerning the principles you select as thetest of your rights and obligations; to be very faithful in noticing theresult of their application; and to be very fearless in tracing andexposing their immediate effects and distant consequences. Under thesanction of this rule of conduct, I am compelled to declare it as mydeliberate opinion, that, if this bill passes, the bonds of this unionare, virtually, dissolved; that the States which compose it are freefrom their moral obligations, and that as it will be the right of all, so it will be the duty of some, to prepare, definitely, for aseparation: amicably, if they can; _violently, if they must_. (Mr. Quincy was here called to order by Mr. Poindexter, delegate fromthe Mississippi territory, for the words in italics. After it wasdecided, upon an appeal to the House, that Mr. Quincy was in order, heproceeded. ) I rejoice, Mr. Speaker, at the result of this appeal. Not from anypersonal consideration, but from the respect paid to the essentialrights of the people, in one of their representatives. When I spoke ofthe separation of the States, as resulting from the violation of theConstitution contemplated in this bill, I spoke of it as a necessity, deeply to be deprecated; but as resulting from causes so certain andobvious as to be absolutely inevitable, when the effect of the principleis practically experienced. It is to preserve, to guard the Constitutionof my country, that I denounce this attempt. I would rouse the attentionof gentlemen from the apathy with which they seem beset. Theseobservations are not made in a corner; there is no low intrigue; nosecret machination. I am on the people's own ground; to them I appealconcerning their own rights, their own liberties, their own intent, inadopting this Constitution. The voice I have uttered, at which gentlemenstartle with such agitation, is no unfriendly voice. I intended it as avoice of warning. By this people, and by the event, if this bill passes, I am willing to be judged, whether it be not a voice of wisdom. The bill which is now proposed to be passed has this assumed principlefor its basis; that the three branches of this national government, without recurrence to conventions of the people in the States, or to theLegislatures of the States, are authorized to admit new partners to ashare of the political power, in countries out of the original limits ofthe United States. Now, this assumed principle, I maintain to bealtogether without any sanction in the Constitution. I declare it to bea manifest and atrocious usurpation of power; of a nature, dissolving, according to undeniable principles of moral law, the obligations of ournational compact; and leading to all the awful con-sequences which flowfrom such a state of things. Concerning this assumed principle, which isthe basis of this bill, this is the general position, on which I rest myargument; that if the authority, now proposed to be exercised, bedelegated to the three branches of the government by virtue of theConstitution, it results either from its general nature, or from itsparticular provisions. I shall consider distinctly both these sources, in relation to this pretended power. Touching the general nature of the instrument called the Constitution ofthe United States there is no obscurity; it has no fabled descent, likethe palladium of ancient Troy, from the heavens. Its origin is notconfused by the mists of time, or hidden by the darkness of passed, unexplored ages; it is the fabric of our day. Some now living, had ashare in its construction; all of us stood by, and saw the rising of theedifice. There can be no doubt about its nature. It is a politicalcompact. By whom? And about what? The preamble to the instrument willanswer these questions. "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfectunion, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for thecommon defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings ofliberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish thisConstitution, for the United States of America. " It is, we the people of the United States, for ourselves and ourposterity; not for the people of Louisiana; nor for the people of NewOrleans or of Canada. None of these enter into the scope of theinstrument; it embraces only "the United States of America. " Who theseare, it may seem strange in this place to inquire. But truly, sir, ourimaginations have, of late, been so accustomed to wander after newsettlements to the very ends of the earth, that it will not be time illspent to inquire what this phrase means, and what it includes. These arenot terms adopted at hazard; they have reference to a state of thingsexisting anterior to the Constitution. When the people of the presentUnited States began to contemplate a severance from their parent State, it was a long time before they fixed definitely the name by which theywould be designated. In 1774, they called themselves "the Colonies andProvinces of North America. " In 1775, "the Representatives of the UnitedColonies of North America. " In the Declaration of Independence, "theRepresentatives of the United States of America. " And finally, in thearticles of confederation, the style of the confederacy is declared tobe "the United States of America. " It was with reference to the oldarticles of confederation, and to preserve the identity and establishedindividuality of their character, that the preamble to thisConstitution, not content, simply, with declaring that it is "we thepeople of the United States, " who enter into this compact, adds that itis for "the United States of America. " Concerning the territorycontemplated by the people of the United States, in these general terms, there can be no dispute; it is settled by the treaty of peace, andincluded within the Atlantic Ocean, the St. Croix, the lakes, and moreprecisely, so far as relates to the frontier, having relation to thepresent argument, within "a line to be drawn through the middle of theriver Mississippi, until it intersect the northernmost part of thethirty-first degree of north latitude, thence within a line drawn dueeast on this degree of latitude to the river Apalachicola, thence alongthe middle of this river to its junction with the Flint River, thencestraight to the head of the St. Mary's River, and thence down the St. Mary's to the Atlantic Ocean. " I have been thus particular to draw the minds of gentlemen, distinctly, to the meaning of the terms used in the preamble; to the extent which"the United States" then included; and to the fact, that neither NewOrleans, nor Louisiana, was within the comprehension of the terms ofthis instrument. It is sufficient for the present branch of my argumentto say, that there is nothing, in the general nature of this compact, from which the power, contemplated to be exercised in this bill, results. On the contrary, as the introduction of a new associate inpolitical power implies, necessarily, a new division of power, andconsequent diminution of the relative proportion of the formerproprietors of it, there can, certainly, be nothing more obvious, thanthat from the general nature of the instrument no power can result todiminish and give away, to strangers, any proportion of the rights ofthe original partners. If such a power exist, it must be found, then, inthe particular provisions in the Constitution. The question now arisingis, in which of these provisions is given the power to admit new States, to be created in territories beyond the limits of the old United States. If it exist anywhere, it is either in the third section of the fourtharticle of the Constitution, or in the treaty-making power. If it resultfrom neither of these, it is not pretended to be found anywhere else. That part of the third section of the fourth article, on which theadvocates of this bill rely, is the following: "New States may beadmitted by the Congress, into this Union; but no new State shall beformed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State, nor anyState be formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts ofStates, without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned, as well as of the Congress. " I know, Mr. Speaker, that the first clause of this paragraph has beenread, with all the superciliousness of a grammarian's triumph--"NewStates may be admitted by the Congress into this Union, "--accompaniedwith this most consequential inquiry: "Is not this a new State to beadmitted? And is there not here an express authority?" I have no doubtthis is a full and satisfactory argument to every one who is contentwith the mere colors and superficies of things. And if we were now atthe bar of some stall-fed justice, the inquiry would insure the victoryto the maker of it, to the manifest delight of the constables andsuitors of his court. But, sir, we are now before the tribunal of thewhole American people; reasoning concerning their liberties, theirrights, their Constitution. These are not to be made the victims of theinevitable obscurity of general terms; nor the sport of verbalcriticism. The question is concerning the intent of the American people, the proprietors of the old United States, when they agreed to thisarticle. Dictionaries and spelling-books are here of no authority. Neither Johnson, nor Walker, nor Webster, nor Dilworth, has any voice inthis matter. Sir, the question concerns the proportion of powerreserved, by this Constitution, to every State in this Union. Have thethree branches of this government a right, at will, to weaken andout-weigh the influence, respectively secured to each State in thiscompact, by introducing, at pleasure, new partners, situate beyond theold limits of the United States? The question has not relation merely toNew Orleans. The great objection is to the principle of the bill. Ifthis principle be admitted, the whole space of Louisiana, greater, it issaid, than the entire extent of the old United States, will be a mightytheatre, in which this government assumes the right of exercising thisunparalleled power. And it will be; there is no concealment, it isintended to be exercised. Nor will it stop until the very name andnature of the old partners be overwhelmed by new-corners into theconfederacy. Sir, the question goes to the very root of the power andinfluence of the present members of this Union. The real intent of thisarticle, is, therefore, an injury of most serious import; and is to besettled only by a recurrence to the known history and known relations ofthis people and their Constitution. These, I maintain, support thisposition, that the terms "new States, " in this article, do not intendnew political sovereignties, with territorial annexations, to be createdwithout the original limits of the United States. * * * But there is an argument stronger even than all those which have beenproduced, to be drawn from the nature of the power here proposed to beexercised. Is it possible that such a power, if it had been intended tobe given by the people, should be left dependent upon the effect ofgeneral expressions, and such, too, as were obviously applicable toanother subject, to a particular exigency contemplated at that time?Sir, what is this power we propose now to usurp? Nothing less than apower changing all the proportions of the weight and influence possessedby the potent sovereignties composing this Union. A stranger is to beintroduced to an equal share without their consent. Upon a principlepretended to be deduced from the Constitution, this government, afterthis bill passes, may and will multiply foreign partners in power at itsown mere motion; at its irresponsible pleasure; in other words, as localinterests, party passions, or ambitious views may suggest. It is a powerthat from its nature never could be delegated; never was delegated; andas it breaks down all the proportions of power guaranteed by theConstitution to the States, upon which their essential security depends, utterly annihilates the moral force of this political conduct. Wouldthis people, so wisely vigilant concerning their rights, havetransferred to Congress a power to balance, at its will, the politicalweight of any one State, much more of all the States, by authorizing itto create new States, at its pleasure, in foreign countries, notpretended to be within the scope of the Constitution, or the conceptionof the people at the time of passing it? This is not so much a questionconcerning the exercise of sovereignty, as it is who shall besovereign--whether the proprietors of the good old United States shallmanage their own affairs in their own way; or whether they, and theirConstitution, and their political rights, shall be trampled under footby foreigners, introduced through a breach of the Constitution. Theproportion of the political weight of each sovereign State constitutingthis Union depends upon the number of the States which have voice underthe compact. This number the Constitution permits us to multiply atpleasure within the limits of the original United States, observing onlythe expressed limitations in the Constitution. But when, in order toincrease your power of augmenting this number, you pass the old limits, you are guilty of a violation of the Constitution in a fundamentalpoint; and in one, also, which is totally inconsistent with the intentof the contract and the safety of the States which established theassociation. What is the practical difference to the old partnerswhether they hold their liberties at the will of a master, or whether byadmitting exterior States on an equal footing with the original States, arbiters are constituted, who, by availing themselves of the contrarietyof interests and views, which in such a confederacy necessarily willarise, hold the balance among the parties which exist and govern us bythrowing themselves into the scale most comformable to their purpose? Inboth cases there is an effective despotism. But the last is the moregalling, as we carry the chain in the name and gait of freemen. I have thus shown, and whether fairly, I am willing to be judged by thesound discretion of the American people, that the power proposed to beusurped in this bill, results neither from the general nature nor theparticular provisions of the Federal Constitution; and that it is apalpable violation of it in a fundamental point; whence flow all theconsequences I have indicated. "But, " says the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Rhea), "these people havebeen seven years citizens of the United States. " I deny it, sir. Ascitizens of New Orleans, or of Louisiana, they never have been, and bythe mode proposed they never will be, citizens of the United States. They may girt upon us for a moment, but no real cement can grow fromsuch an association. What the real situation of the inhabitants of thoseforeign countries is, I shall have occasion to show presently. "But, "says the same gentleman: "if I have a farm, have not I a right topurchase another farm, in my neighborhood, and settle my sons upon it, and in time admit them to a share in the management of my household?"Doubtless, sir. But are these cases parallel? Are the three branches ofthis government owners of this farm, called the United States? I desireto thank heaven they are not. I hold my life, liberty, and property, andthe people of the State from which I have the honor to be arepresentative hold theirs, by a better tenure than any this NationalGovernment can give. Sir, I know your virtue. And I thank the GreatGiver of every good gift, that neither the gentleman from Tennessee, norhis comrades, nor any, nor all the members of this House, nor of theother branch of the Legislature, nor the good gentleman who lives in thepalace yonder, nor all combined, can touch these my essential rights, and those of my friends and constituents, except in a limited andprescribed form. No, sir. We hold these by the laws, customs, andprinciples of the commonwealth of Massachusetts. Behind her ampleshield, we find refuge, and feel safety. I beg gentlemen not to act uponthe principle, that the commonwealth of Massachusetts is their farm. "But, " the gentleman adds, "what shall we do, if we do not admit thepeople of Louisiana into our Union? Our children are settling thatcountry. " Sir, it is no concern of mine what he does. Because hischildren have run wild and uncovered into the woods, is that a reasonfor him to break into my house, or the houses of my friends, to filchour children's clothes, in order to cover his children's nakedness. ThisConstitution never was, and never can be, strained to lap over all thewilderness of the West, without essentially affecting both the rightsand convenience of its real proprietors. It was never constructed toform a covering for the inhabitants of the Missouri and Red Rivercountry. And whenever it is attempted to be stretched over them, it willrend asunder. I have done with this part of my argument. It rests uponthis fundamental principle, that the proportion of political power, subject only to internal modifications, permitted by the Constitution, is an unalienable, essential, intangible right. When it is touched, thefabric is annihilated; for, on the preservation of these proportions, depend our rights and liberties. If we recur to the known relations existing among the States at the timeof the adoption of this Constitution, the same conclusions will result. The various interests, habits, manners, prejudices, education, situation, and views, which excited jealousies and anxieties in thebreasts of some of our most distinguished citizens, touching the resultof the proposed Constitution, were potent obstacles to its adoption. Theimmortal leader of our Revolution, in his letter to the President of theold Congress, written as president of the convention which formed thiscompact, thus speaks on this subject: "It is at all times difficult todraw, with precision, the line between those rights which must besurrendered, and those which may be reserved; and on the presentoccasion this difficulty was increased by a difference among the severalStates, as to their situation, extent, habits, and particularinterests. " The debates of that period will show that the effect of the slave votesupon the political influence of this part of the country, and theanticipated variation of the weight of power to the West, were subjectsof great and just jealousy to some of the best patriots in the Northernand Eastern States. Suppose, then, that it had been distinctly foreseenthat, in addition to the effect of this weight, the whole population ofa world beyond the Mississippi was to be brought into this and the otherbranch of the Legislature, to form our laws, control our rights, anddecide our destiny. Sir, can it be pretended that the patriots of thatday would for one moment have listened to it? They were not madmen. Theyhad not taken degrees at the hospital of idiocy. They knew the nature ofman, and the effect of his combinations in political societies. Theyknew that when the weight of particular sections of a confederacy wasgreatly unequal, the resulting power would be abused; that it was not inthe nature of man to exercise it with moderation. The very extravaganceof the intended use is a conclusive evidence against the possibility ofthe grant of such a power as is here proposed. Why, sir, I have alreadyheard of six States, and some say there will be, at no great distance oftime, more. I have also heard that the mouth of the Ohio will be far tothe east of the centre of the contemplated empire. If the bill ispassed, the principle is recognized. All the rest are mere questions ofexpediency. It is impossible such a power could be granted. It was notfor these men that our fathers fought. It was not for them thisConstitution was adopted. You have no authority to throw the rights andliberties and property of this people into "hotch-pot" with the wild menon the Missouri, nor with the mixed, though more respectable, race ofAnglo-Hispano-Gallo-Americans, who bask on the sands in the mouth of theMississippi. I make no objection to these from their want of moralqualities or political light. The inhabitants of New Orleans are, Isuppose, like those of all other countries, some good, some bad, someindifferent. * * * I will add only a few words, in relation to the moral and politicalconsequences of usurping this power. I have said that it would be avirtual dissolution of the Union; and gentlemen express greatsensibility at the expression. But the true source of terror is not thedeclaration I have made, but the deed you propose. Is there a moralprinciple of public law better settled, or more conformable to theplainest suggestions of reason, than that the violation of a contract byone of the parties may be considered as exempting the other from itsobligations? Suppose, in private life, thirteen form a partnership, andten of them undertake to admit a new partner without the concurrence ofthe other three, would it not be at their option to abandon thepartnership, after so palpable an infringement of their rights? How muchmore, in the political partnership, where the admission of newassociates, without previous authority, is so pregnant with obviousdangers and evils! Again, it is settled as a principle of morality, among writers on public law, that no person can be obliged, beyond hisintent at the time of contract. Now who believes, who dare assert, thatit was the intention of the people, when they adopted this Constitution, to assign, eventually, to New Orleans and Louisiana, a portion of theirpolitical power; and to invest all the people those extensive regionsmight hereafter contain, with an authority over themselves and theirdescendants? When you throw the weight of Louisiana into the scale, youdestroy the political equipoise contemplated at the time of forming thecontract. Can any man venture to affirm that the people did intend sucha comprehension as you now, by construction, give it? Or can it beconcealed that, beyond its fair and acknowledged intent, such a compacthas no moral force? If gentlemen are so alarmed at the bare mention ofthe consequences, let them abandon a measure which, sooner or later, will produce them. How long before the seeds of discontent will ripen, no man can foretell. But it is the part of wisdom not to multiply orscatter them. Do you suppose the people of the Northern and AtlanticStates will, or ought to, look on with patience and see Representativesand Senators, from the Red River and Missouri, pouring themselves uponthis and the other floor, managing the concerns of a sea-board fifteenhundred miles, at least, from their residence; and having apreponderancy in councils, into which, constitutionally, they couldnever have been admitted? I have no hesitation upon this point. Theyneither will see it, nor ought to see it, with content. It is the partof a wise man to foresee danger and to hide himself. This greatusurpation, which creeps into this House, under the plausible appearanceof giving content to that important point, New Orleans, starts up agigantic power to control the nation. Upon the actual condition ofthings, there is, there can be, no need of concealment. It is apparentto the blindest vision. By the course of nature, and conformable to theacknowledged principles of the Constitution, the sceptre of power, inthis country, is passing toward the Northwest. Sir, there is to this noobjection. The right belongs to that quarter of the country. Enjoy it;it is yours. Use the powers granted as you please. But take care, inyour haste after effectual dominion, not to overload the scale byheaping it with these new acquisitions. Grasp not too eagerly at yourpurpose. In your speed after uncontrolled sway, trample not down thisConstitution. * * * New States are intended to be formed beyond the Mississippi. There is nolimit to men's imaginations, on this subject, short of California andColumbia River. When I said that the bill would justify a revolution andwould produce it, I spoke of its principle and its practicalconsequences. To this principle and those consequences I would call theattention of this House and nation. If it be about to introduce acondition of things absolutely insupportable, it becomes wise and honestmen to anticipate the evil, and to warn and prepare the people againstthe event. I have no hesitation on the subject. The extension of thisprinciple to the States contemplated beyond the Mississippi, cannot, will not, and ought not to be borne. And the sooner the peoplecontemplate the unavoidable result the better; the more hope that theevils may be palliated or removed. Mr. Speaker, what is this liberty of which so much is said? Is it towalk about this earth, to breathe this air, to partake the commonblessings of God's providence? The beasts of the field and the birds ofthe air unite with us in such privileges as these. But man boasts apurer and more ethereal temperature. His mind grasps in its view thepast and future, as well as the present. We live not for ourselvesalone. That which we call liberty is that principle on which theessential security of our political condition depends. It results fromthe limitations of our political system, prescribed in the Constitution. These limitations, so long as they are faithfully observed, maintainorder, peace, and safety. When they are violated, in essentialparticulars, all the concurrent spheres of authority rush against eachother; and disorder, derangement, and convulsion are, sooner or later, the necessary consequences. With respect to this love of our Union, concerning which so muchsensibility is expressed, I have no fears about analyzing its nature. There is in it nothing of mystery. It depends upon the qualities of thatUnion, and it results from its effects upon our and our country'shappiness. It is valued for "that sober certainty of waking bliss" whichit enables us to realize. It grows out of the affections, and has not, and cannot be made to have, any thing universal in its nature. Sir, Iconfess it: the first public love of my heart is the Commonwealth ofMassachusetts. There is my fireside; there are the tombs of my ancestors. "Low lies that land, yet blest with fruitful stores, Strong are her sons, though rocky are her shores; And none, ah! none, so lovely to my sight, Of all the lands which heaven o'erspreads with light. " The love of this Union grows out of this attachment to my native soil, and is rooted in it. I cherish it, because it affords the best externalhope of her peace, her prosperity, her independence. I oppose this billfrom no animosity to the people of New Orleans; but from the deepconviction that it contains a principle incompatible with the libertiesand safety of my country. I have no concealment of my opinion. The bill, if it passes, is a death-blow to the Constitution. It may, afterward, linger; but, lingering, its fate will, at no very distant period, beconsummated. HENRY CLAY --OF KENTUCKY. (BORN 1777, DIED 1852. ) ON THE WAR OF 1812--HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JAN. 8, 1813. SIR, gentlemen appear to me to forget that they stand on American soil;that they are not in the British House of Commons, but in the chamber ofthe House of Representatives of the United States; that we have nothingto do with the affairs of Europe, the partition of territory andsovereignty there, except so far as these things affect the interests ofour own country. Gentlemen transform themselves into the Burkes, Chathams, and Pitts of another country, and, forgetting, from honestzeal, the interests of America, engage with European sensibility in thediscussion of European interests. If gentlemen ask me whether I do notview with regret and horror the concentration of such vast power in thehands of Bonaparte, I reply that I do. I regret to see the Emperor ofChina holding such immense sway over the fortunes of millions of ourspecies. I regret to see Great Britain possessing so uncontrolled acommand over all the waters of the globe. If I had the ability todistribute among the nations of Europe their several portions of powerand of sovereignty, I would say that Holland should be resuscitated andgiven the weight she enjoyed in the days of her De Witts. I wouldconfine France within her natural boundaries, the Alps, Pyrenees, andthe Rhine, and make her a secondary naval power only. I would abridgethe British maritime power, raise Prussia and Austria to their originalcondition, and preserve the integrity of the Empire of Russia. But theseare speculations. I look at the political transactions of Europe, withthe single exception of their possible bearing upon us, as I do at thehistory of other countries and other times. I do not survey them withhalf the interest that I do the movements in South America. Ourpolitical relation with them is much less important than it is supposedto be. I have no fears of French or English subjugation. If we areunited we are too powerful for the mightiest nation in Europe or allEurope combined. If we are separated and torn asunder, we shall becomean easy prey to the weakest of them. In the latter dreadful contingencyour country will not be worth preserving. Next to the notice which the opposition has found itself called upon tobestow upon the French Emperor, a distinguished citizen of Virginia, formerly President of the United States, has never for a moment failedto receive their kindest and most respectful attention. An honorablegentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Quincy), of whom I am sorry to say itbecomes necessary for me, in the course of my remarks, to take somenotice, has alluded to him in a remarkable manner. Neither hisretirement from public office, his eminent services, nor his advancedage, can exempt this patriot from the coarse assaults of partymalevolence. No, sir. In 1801 he snatched from the rude hand ofusurpation the violated Constitution of his country, and that is hiscrime. He preserved that instrument, in form, and substance, and spirit, a precious inheritance for generations to come, and for this he cannever be forgiven. How vain and impotent is party rage, directed againstsuch a man. He is not more elevated by his lofty residence, upon thesummit of his own favorite mountain, than he is lifted, by the serenityof his mind, and the consciousness of a well-spent life, above themalignant passions and bitter feelings of the day. No! his own belovedMonticello is not less moved by the storms that beat against its sidesthan is this illustrious man by the howlings of the whole British pack, set loose from the Essex kennel. When the gentleman to whom I have beencompelled to allude shall have mingled his dust with that of his abusedancestors, when he shall have been consigned to oblivion, or, if helives at all, shall live only in the treasonable annals of a certainjunto, the name of Jefferson will be hailed with gratitude, his memoryhonored and cherished as the second founder of the liberties of thepeople, and the period of his administration will be looked back to asone of the happiest and brightest epochs of American history; an oasisin the midst of a sandy desert. But I beg the gentleman's pardon; he hasalready secured to himself a more imperishable fame than I had supposed;I think it was about four years that he submitted to the House ofRepresentatives an initiative proposition for the impeachment of Mr. Jefferson. The house condescended to consider it. The gentleman debatedit with his usual temper, moderation, and urbanity. The house decidedupon it in the most solemn manner, and, although the gentleman hadsomehow obtained a second, the final vote stood one for, and one hundredand seventeen against, the proposition. * * * But sir, I must speak of another subject, which I never think of butwith feelings of the deepest awe. The gentleman from Massachusetts, inimitation of some of his predecessors of 1799, has entertained us with apicture of cabinet plots, presidential plots, and all sorts of plots, which have been engendered by the diseased state of the gentleman'simagination. I wish, sir, that another plot, of a much more serious andalarming character--a plot that aims at the dismemberment of ourUnion--had only the same imaginary existence. But no man, who has paidany attention to the tone of certain prints and to transactions in aparticular quarter of the Union, for several years past, can doubt theexistence of such a plot. It was far, very far from my intention tocharge the opposition with such a design. No, I believe them generallyincapable of it. But I cannot say as much for some who have beenunworthily associated with them in the quarter of the Union to which Ihave referred. The gentleman cannot have forgotten his own sentiment, uttered even on the floor of this house, "peaceably if we can, forciblyif we must, " nearly at the very time Henry's mission was undertaken. Theflagitiousness of that embassy had been attempted to be concealed bydirecting the public attention to the price which, the gentleman says, was given for the disclosure. As if any price could change theatrociousness of the attempt on the part of Great Britain, or couldextenuate, in the slightest degree, the offence of those citizens, whoentertained and deliberated on a proposition so infamous and unnatural ** * But, sir, I will quit this unpleasant subject. * * * The war was declared because Great Britain arrogated to herself thepretension of regulating our foreign trade, under the delusive name ofretaliatory orders in council--a pretension by which she undertook toproclaim to American enterprise, "thus far shalt thou go, and nofurther"--orders which she refused to revoke after the alleged cause oftheir enactment had ceased; because she persisted in the practice ofimpressing American seamen; because she had instigated the Indians tocommit hostilities against us; and because she refused indemnity for herpast injuries upon our commerce. I throw out of the question otherwrongs. So undeniable were the causes of the war, so powerfully did theyaddress themselves to the feelings of the whole American people, thatwhen the bill was pending before this House, gentlemen in theopposition, although provoked to debate, would not, or could not, utterone syllable against it. It is true, they wrapped themselves up insullen silence, pretending they did not choose to debate such a questionin secret session. While speaking of the proceedings on that occasion Ibeg to be permitted to advert to another fact which transpired--animportant fact, material for the nation to know, and which I have oftenregretted had not been spread upon our journals. My honorable colleague(Mr. McKee) moved, in committee of the whole, to comprehend France inthe war; and when the question was taken upon the proposition, thereappeared but ten votes in support of it, of whom seven belonged to thisside of the house, and three only to the other. * * * It is not to the British principle (of allegiance), objectionable as itis, that we are alone to look; it is to her practice, no matter whatguise she puts on. It is in vain to assert the inviolability of theobligation of allegiance. It is in vain to set up the plea of necessity, and to allege that she cannot exist without the impressment of HERseamen. The naked truth is, she comes, by her press-gangs, on board ofour vessels, seizes OUR native as well as naturalized seamen, and dragsthem into her service. It is the case, then, of the assertion of anerroneous principle, and of a practice not conformable to the assertedprinciple--a principle which, if it were theoretically right, must beforever practically wrong--a practice which can obtain countenance fromno principle whatever, and to submit to which, on our part, would betraythe most abject degradation. We are told, by gentlemen in theopposition, that government has not done all that was incumbent on it todo, to avoid just cause of complaint on the part of Great Britain; thatin particular the certificates of protection, authorized by the act of1796, are fraudulently used. Sir, government has done too much ingranting those paper protections. I can never think of them withoutbeing shocked. They resemble the passes which the master grants to hisnegro slave: "Let the bearer, Mungo, pass and repass withoutmolestation. " What do they imply? That Great Britain has a right toseize all who are not provided with them. From their very nature, theymust be liable to abuse on both sides. If Great Britain desires a mark, by which she can know her own subjects, let her give them an ear-mark. The colors that float from the mast-head should be the credentials ofour seamen. There is no safety to us, and the gentlemen have shown it, but in the rule that all who sail under the flag (not being enemies), are protected by the flag. It is impossible that this country shouldever abandon the gallant tars who have won for us such splendidtrophies. Let me suppose that the genius of Columbia should visit one ofthem in his oppressor's prison, and attempt to reconcile him to hisforlorn and wretched condition. She would say to him, in the language ofgentlemen on the other side: "Great Britain intends you no harm; she didnot mean to impress you, but one of her own subjects; having taken youby mistake, I will remonstrate, and try to prevail upon her, bypeaceable means, to release you; but I cannot, my son, fight for you. "If he did not consider this mere mockery, the poor tar would address herjudgment and say: "You owe me, my country, protection; I owe you, inreturn, obedience. I am no British subject; I am a native of oldMassachusetts, where lived my aged father, my wife, my children. I havefaithfully discharged my duty. Will you refuse to do yours?" Appealingto her passions, he would continue: "I lost this eye in fighting underTruxton, with the Insurgence; I got this scar before Tripoli; I brokethis leg on board the Constitution, when the Guerriere struck. " * * * Iwill not imagine the dreadful catastrophe to which he would be driven byan abandonment of him to his oppressor. It will not be, it cannot be, that his country will refuse him protection. * * * An honorable peace is attainable only by an efficient war. My plan wouldbe to call out the ample resources of the country, give them a judiciousdirection, prosecute the war with the utmost vigor, strike wherever wecan reach the enemy, at sea or on land, and negotiate the terms of apeace at Quebec or at Halifax. We are told that England is a proud andlofty nation, which, disdaining to wait for danger, meets it half way. Haughty as she is we triumphed over her once, and, if we do not listento the counsels of timidity and despair, we shall again prevail. In sucha cause, with the aid of Providence, we must come out crowned withsuccess; but, if we fail, let us fail like men, lash ourselves to ourgallant tars, and expire together in one common struggle, fighting forFREE TRADE AND SEAMEN'S RIGHTS. IV. -- THE RISE OF NATIONALITY. In spite of execrable financial management, of the criminal blunders ofpolitical army officers, and of consequent defeats on land, and quiteapart from brilliant sea-fights and the New Orleans victory, the war of1812 was of incalculable benefit to the United States. It marks moreparticularly the point at which the already established democracy beganto shade off into a real nationality. The Democratic party began its career as a States-rights party. Possession of national power had so far modified the practical operationof its tenets that it had not hesitated to carry out a national policy, and even wage a desperate war, in flat opposition to the will of onesection of the Union, comprising five of its most influential States;and, when the Hartford Convention was suspected of a design to put theNew England opposition to the war into a forcible veto, there were manyindications that the dominant party was fully prepared to answer by aforcible materialization of the national will. In the North and West, atleast, the old States-rights formulas never carried a real vitalitybeyond the war of 1812. Men still spoke of "sovereign States, " andprided themselves on the difference between the "voluntary union ofStates" and the effete despotisms of Europe; but the ghost of theHartford Convention had laid very many more dangerous ghosts in thesection in which it had appeared. The theatre of the war, now filled with comfortable farms and populouscities, was then less known than any of our Territories in 1896. Therewere no roads, and the transportation of provisions for the troops, ofguns, ammunition, and stores for the lake navies, was one of the mostdifficult of the problems which the National Government was called uponto solve. It cannot be said that the solution was successfully reached, for the blunders in transportation were among the most costly, exasperating, and dangerous of the war. But the efforts to reach itprovided the impulse which soon after resulted in the settlement ofWestern New York, the appearance of the germs of such flourishing citiesas Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse, the opening up of the SouthwestTerritory, between Tennessee and New Orleans, and the rapid admission ofthe new States of Indiana, Illinois, Mississippi, and Missouri. But theimpulse did not stop here. The inconveniences and dangers arising fromthe possession of a vast territory with utterly inadequate means ofcommunication had been brought so plainly to public view by the war thatthe question of communication influenced politics in every direction. InNew York it took shape in the construction of the Erie Canal (finishedin 1825). In States farther west and south, the loaning of the publiccredit to enterprises of the nature of the Erie Canal increased untilthe panic of 1837 introduced "repudiation" into American politics. Innational politics, the necessity of a general system of canals androads, as a means of military defence, was at first admitted by all, even by Calhoun, was gradually rejected by the stricter constructionistsof the Constitution, and finally became a tenet of the NationalRepublican party, headed by John Quincy Adams and Clay (1825-29), and ofits greater successor the Whig party, headed by Clay. This idea ofInternal Improvements at national expense, though suggested by Gallatinand Clay in 1806-08, only became a political question when the war hadforced it upon public attention; and it has not yet entirelydisappeared. The maintenance of such a system required money, and a high tariff ofduties on imports was a necessary concomitant to Internal Improvements. The germ of this system was also a product of the war of 1812. Hamiltonhad proposed it twenty years before; and the first American tariff acthad declared that its object was the encouragement of Americanmanufactures. But the system had never been effectively introduced untilthe war and the blockade had forced American manufactures intoexistence. Peace brought competition with British manufacturers, and theAmerican manufacturers began to call for protection. The tariff of 1816contained the principle of Protection, but only carried it into practicefar enough to induce the manufacturers to rely on the dominant party formore of it. This expectation, rather than the Federalist opposition tothe war, is the explanation of the immediate and rapid decline of theFederal party in New England. Continued effort brought about the tariffof 1824, which was more protective; the tariff of 1828, which was stillmore protective; and the tariff of 1830, which reduced the protectiveelement to a system. The two sections, North and South, had been very much alike until thewar called the principle of growth into activity. The slave system oflabor, which had fallen in the North and had survived and been madestill more profitable in the South by Whitney's invention of the cottongin in 1793, shut the South off from almost all share in the new life. That section had a monopoly of the cotton culture, and the presentprofit of slave labor blinded it to the ultimate consequences of it. Theslave was fit for rude agriculture alone; he could not be employed inmanufactures, or in any labor which required intelligence; and theslave-owner, while he desired manufactures, did not dare to cultivatethe necessary intelligence in his own slaves. The South could thereforefind no profit in protection, and yet it could not with dignity admitthat its slave system precluded it from the advantages of protection, orbase its opposition to protection wholly on economic grounds. Its onlyrecourse was the constitutional ground of the lack of power of Congressto pass a protective tariff, and this brought up again the questionwhich had evolved the Kentucky resolutions of 1798-9. Calhoun, withpitiless logic, developed them into a scheme of constitutionalNullification. Under his lead, South Carolina, in 1832, declared through her State Convention that theprotective tariff acts were no law, nor binding on the State, itsofficers or citizens. President Jackson, while he was ready and willingto suppress any such rebellion by force, was not sorry to see hisadherents in Congress make use of it to overthrow protection; and a"compromise tariff, " to which the protectionists agreed, was passed in1833. It reduced the duties by an annual percentage for ten years. Thenullifiers claimed this as a triumph, and formally repealed theordinance of nullification, as if it had accomplished its object. But, in its real intent, it had failed wretchedly. It had asserted Statesovereignty through the State's proper voice of a convention. When thetime fixed for the execution of the ordinance arrived, Jackson'sintention of taking the State's sovereignty by the throat had become soevident that an unofficial meeting of nullifiers suspended the ordinanceuntil the passage of the compromise tariff had made it unnecessary. Forthe first time, the force of a State and the national force hadapproached threateningly near collision, and no State ever tried itagain. When the tariff of 1842 reintroduced the principle of protection, no one thought of taking the broken weapon of nullification from itsresting-place; and secession was finally attempted only as a sectionalmovement, not as the expression of the will of a State, but as aconcerted revolution by a number of States. It seems certain thatnationality had attained force enough, even in 1833, to have put Statesovereignty forever under its feet; and that but for the cohesivesectional force of slavery and its interests, the development ofnationality would have been undisputed for the future. New conditions were increasing the growth of the North and West, andtheir separation from the South in national life, even whennullification was in its death struggle. The acquisition of Louisiana in1803 had been followed in 1807 by Fulton's invention of the steamboat, the most important factor in carrying immigration into the newterritories and opening them up to settlement. But the steamboat couldnot quite bridge over the gap between the Alleghanies and theMississippi. Internal improvements, canals, and improved roads were notquite the instrument that was needed. It was found at last in theintroduction of the railway into the United States in 1830-32. Thisproved to be an agent which could solve every difficulty except its own. It could bridge over every gap; it could make profit of its own, andmake profitable that which had before been unprofitable. It placedimmigrants where the steamboat, canal, and road could at last be of thehighest utility to them; it developed the great West with startlingrapidity; it increased the sale of government lands so rapidly that in afew years the debt of the United States was paid off, and the surplusbecame, for the first time, a source of political embarrassment. In afew years further, aided by revolutionary troubles in Europe, immigration became a great stream, which poured into and altered theconditions of every part of the North and West. The stream wasaltogether nationalizing in its nature. The immigrant came to the UnitedStates, not to a particular State. To him, the country was greater thanany State; even that of his adoption. Labor conditions excluded theSouth from this element of progress also. Not only were the railroads ofthe South hampered in every point by the old difficulty of slave labor;immigration and free labor shunned slave soil as if the plague werethere prevalent. Year after year the North and West became more nationalin their prejudices and modes of thought and action; while the Southremained little changed, except by a natural reactionary drift toward amore extreme colonialism. The natural result, in the next period was thedevelopment of a quasi nationality in the South itself. The introduction of the railway had brought its own difficulties, thoughthese were not felt severely until after years. In the continent ofEurope, the governments carefully retained their powers of eminentdomain when the new system was introduced. The necessary land was loanedto the railways for a term of years, at the expiration of which therailway was to revert to the State; and railway troubles werenon-existent, or comparatively tractable. In the United States, as inGreat Britain, free right of incorporation was supplemented by what wasreally a gift of the power of eminent domain. The necessary land becamethe property of the corporations in fee, and it has been found almostequally difficult to revoke the gift or to introduce a railway control. Democracy took a new and extreme line of development under its alliancewith nationality. As the dominant party, about 1827-8, became dividedinto two parties, the new parties felt the democratic influence asneither of their predecessors had felt it. Nominations, which had beenmade by cliques of legislators or Congressmen, began to be made bypopular delegate conventions about 1825. Before 1835, national, State, and local conventions had been united into parties of the modern type. With them came the pseudo-democratic idea of "rotation in office, "introduced into national politics by President Jackson, in 1829, andadopted by succeeding administrations. There were also some attempts todo away with the electoral system, and to make the federal judiciaryelective, or to impose on it some other term of office than goodbehavior; but these had neither success nor encouragement. The financial errors of the war of 1812 had fairly compelled there-establishment of the Bank of the United States in 1816, with acharter for twenty years, and the control of the deposits of nationalrevenue. Soon after Jackson's inauguration, the managers of the newdemocratic party came into collision with the bank on the appointment ofa subordinate agent. It very soon became evident that the bank could notexist in the new political atmosphere. It was driven into politics;a new charter was vetoed in 1832; and after one of the bittereststruggles of our history, the bank ceased to exist as a governmentinstitution in 1836. The reason for its fall, however disguised byattendant circumstances, was really its lack of harmony with thenational-democratic environment which had overtaken it. Benton'sspeech presents a review of this bank struggle and of accompanyingpolitical controversies. The anti-slavery agitation, which began in 1830, was as evidently aproduct of the new phase of democracy, but will fall more naturallyunder the next period. Webster's reply to Hayne has been taken as the best illustration of thatthoroughly national feeling which was impossible before the war of 1812, and increasingly more common after it. It has been necessary to prefaceit with Hayne's speech, in order to have a clear understanding of partsof Webster's; but it has not been possible to omit Calhoun's speech, asa defence of his scheme of nullification, and as an exemplification ofthe reaction toward colonialism with which the South met the nationaldevelopment. It has not seemed necessary to include other examples ofthe orations called forth by the temporary political issues of the time. ROBERT Y. HAYNE, ---OF SOUTH CAROLINA. (BORN 1791, DIED 1840. ) ON MR. FOOT'S RESOLUTION IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE, JAN. 21, 1830 MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Hayne said, when he took occasion, two days ago, to throw out someideas with respect to the policy of the government in relation to thepublic lands, nothing certainly could have been further from histhoughts than that he should have been compelled again to throw himselfupon the indulgence of the Senate. Little did I expect, said Mr. H. , tobe called upon to meet such an argument as was yesterday urged by thegentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Webster). Sir, I question no man'sopinions; I impeach no man's motives; I charged no party, or State, orsection of country with hostility to any other, but ventured, as Ithought, in a becoming spirit, to put forth my own sentiments inrelation to a great national question of public policy. Such was mycourse. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Benton), it is true, hadcharged upon the Eastern States an early and continued hostility towardthe West, and referred to a number of historical facts and documents insupport of that charge. Now, sir, how have these different argumentsbeen met? The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts, after deliberatinga whole night upon his course, comes into this chamber to vindicate NewEngland; and instead of making up his issue with the gentleman fromMissouri, on the charges which he had preferred, chooses to consider meas the author of those charges, and losing sight entirely of thatgentleman, selects me as his adversary, and pours out all the vials ofhis mighty wrath upon my devoted head. Nor is he willing to stop there. He goes on to assail the institutions and policy of the South, and callsin question the principles and conduct of the State which I have thehonor to represent. When I find a gentleman of mature age andexperience, of acknowledged talents and profound sagacity, pursuing acourse like this, declining the contest offered from the West, andmaking war upon the unoffending South, I must believe, I am bound tobelieve, he has some object in view which he has not ventured todisclose. Mr. President, why is this? Has the gentleman discovered informer controversies with the gentleman from Missouri, that he isovermatched by that senator? And does he hope for an easy victory over amore feeble adversary? Has the gentleman's distempered fancy beendisturbed by gloomy forebodings of "new alliances to be formed, " atwhich he hinted? Has the ghost of the murdered coalition come back, likethe ghost of Banquo, to "sear the eyeballs" of the gentleman, and willnot down at his bidding? Are dark visions of broken hopes, and honorslost forever, still floating before his heated imagination? Sir, if itbe his object to thrust me between the gentleman from Missouri andhimself, in order to rescue the East from the contest it has provokedwith the West, he shall not be gratified. Sir, I will not be draggedinto the defence of my friend from Missouri. The South shall not beforced into a conflict not its own. The gentleman from Missouri is ableto fight his own battles. The gallant West needs no aid from the Southto repel any attack which may be made upon them from any quarter. Letthe gentleman from Massachusetts controvert the facts and arguments ofthe gentleman from Missouri, if he can--and if he win the victory, lethim wear the honors; I shall not deprive him of his laurels. * * * Sir, any one acquainted with the history of parties in this country willrecognize in the points now in dispute between the Senator fromMassachusetts and myself the very grounds which have, from thebeginning, divided the two great parties in this country, and which(call these parties by what names you will, and amalgamate them as youmay) will divide them forever. The true distinction between thoseparties is laid down in a celebrated manifesto issued by the conventionof the Federalists of Massachusetts, assembled in Boston, in February, 1824, on the occasion of organizing a party opposition to the reelectionof Governor Eustis. The gentleman will recognize this as "the canonicalbook of political scripture"; and it instructs us that, when theAmerican colonies redeemed themselves from British bondage, and becameso many independent nations, they proposed to form a NATIONAL UNION (nota Federal Union, sir, but a NATIONAL UNION). Those who were in favor of a union of the States in this form becameknown by the name of Federalists; those who wanted no union of theStates, or disliked the proposed form of union, became known by the nameof Anti-Federalists. By means which need not be enumerated, theAnti-Federalists became (after the expiration of twelve years) ournational rulers, and for a period of sixteen years, until the close ofMr. Madison's administration in 1817, continued to exercise theexclusive direction of our public affairs. Here, sir, is the truehistory of the origin, rise, and progress of the party of NationalRepublicans, who date back to the very origin of the Government, and whothen, as now, chose to consider the Constitution as having created not aFederal, but a National, Union; who regarded "consolidation" as no evil, and who doubtless consider it "a consummation to be wished" to build upa great "central government, " "one and indivisible. " Sir, there haveexisted, in every age and every country, two distinct orders of men--thelovers of freedom and the devoted advocates of power. The same great leading principles, modified only by the peculiarities ofmanners, habits, and institutions, divided parties in the ancientrepublics, animated the Whigs and Tories of Great Britain, distinguishedin our own times the Liberals and Ultras of France, and may be tracedeven in the bloody struggles of unhappy Spain. Sir, when the gallantRiego, who devoted himself and all that he possessed to the liberties ofhis country, was dragged to the scaffold, followed by the tears andlamentations of every lover of freedom throughout the world, he perishedamid the deafening cries of "Long live the absolute king!" The peoplewhom I represent, Mr. President, are the descendants of those whobrought with them to this country, as the most precious of theirpossessions, "an ardent love of liberty"; and while that shall bepreserved, they will always be found manfully struggling against theconsolidation of the Government AS THE WORST OF EVILS. * * * Who, then, Mr. President, are the true friends of the Union? Those whowould confine the Federal Government strictly within the limitsprescribed by the Constitution; who would preserve to the States and thepeople all powers not expressly delegated; who would make this a Federaland not a National Union, and who, administering the Government in aspirit of equal justice, would make it a blessing, and not a curse. Andwho are its enemies? Those who are in favor of consolidation; who areconstantly stealing power from the States, and adding strength to theFederal Government; who, assuming an unwarrantable jurisdiction over theStates and the people, undertake to regulate the whole industry andcapital of the country. But, sir, of all descriptions of men, I considerthose as the worst enemies of the Union, who sacrifice the equal rightswhich belong to every member of the confederacy to combinations ofinterested majorities for personal or political objects. But thegentleman apprehends no evil from the dependence of the States on theFederal Government; he can see no danger of corruption from theinfluence of money or patronage. Sir, I know that it is supposed to be awise saying that "patronage is a source of weakness"; and in support ofthat maxim it has been said that "every ten appointments make a hundredenemies. " But I am rather inclined to think, with the eloquent andsagacious orator now reposing on his laurels on the banks of theRoanoke, that "the power of conferring favors creates a crowd ofdependents"; he gave a forcible illustration of the truth of the remark, when he told us of the effect of holding up the savory morsel to theeager eyes of the hungry hounds gathered around his door. It matterednot whether the gift was bestowed on "Towzer" or "Sweetlips, " "Tray, ""Blanche, " or "Sweetheart"; while held in suspense, they were allgoverned by a nod, and when the morsel was bestowed, the expectation ofthe favors of to-morrow kept up the subjection of to-day. The Senator from Massachusetts, in denouncing what he is pleased to callthe Carolina doctrine, has attempted to throw ridicule upon the ideathat a State has any constitutional remedy by the exercise of itssovereign authority, against "a gross, palpable, and deliberateviolation of the Constitution. " He calls it "an idle" or "a ridiculousnotion, " or something to that effect, and added, that it would make theUnion a "mere rope of sand. " Now, sir, as the gentleman has notcondescended to enter into any examination of the question, and has beensatisfied with throwing the weight of his authority into the scale, I donot deem it necessary to do more than to throw into the opposite scalethe authority on which South Carolina relies; and there, for thepresent, I am perfectly willing to leave the controversy. The SouthCarolina doctrine, that is to say, the doctrine contained in anexposition reported by a committee of the Legislature in December, 1828, and published by their authority, is the good old Republican doctrine of'98--the doctrine of the celebrated "Virginia Resolutions" of that year, and of "Madison's Report" of '99. It will be recollected that theLegislature of Virginia, in December, '98, took into consideration thealien and sedition laws, then considered by all Republicans as a grossviolation of the Constitution of the United States, and on that daypassed, among others, the following resolution: "The General Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that itviews the powers of the Federal Government, as resulting from thecompact to which the States are parties, as limited by the plain senseand intention of the instrument constituting that compact, as no furthervalid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact;and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise ofother powers not granted by the said compact, the States who are theparties there-to have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose forarresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within theirrespective limits the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining tothem. " In addition to the above resolution, the General Assembly of Virginia"appealed to the other States, in the confidence that they would concurwith that commonwealth, that the acts aforesaid (the alien and seditionlaws) are unconstitutional, and that the necessary and proper measureswould be taken by each for cooperating with Virginia in maintainingunimpaired the authorities, rights, and liberties reserved to the Statesrespectively, or to the people. " * * * But, sir, our authorities do not stop here. The State of Kentuckyresponded to Virginia, and on the 10th of November, 1798, adopted thosecelebrated resolutions, well known to have been penned by the author ofthe Declaration of American Independence. In those resolutions, theLegislature of Kentucky declare, "that the government created by thiscompact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of thepower delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in allother cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each partyhas an equal right to judge for itself as well of infractions as of themode and measure of redress. " * * * Sir, at that day the whole country was divided on this very question. Itformed the line of demarcation between the federal and republicanparties; and the great political revolution which then took place turnedupon the very questions involved in these resolutions. That question wasdecided by the people, and by that decision the Constitution was, in theemphatic language of Mr. Jefferson, "saved at its last gasp. " I shouldsuppose, sir, it would require more self-respect than any gentleman herewould be willing to assume, to treat lightly doctrines derived from suchhigh sources. Resting on authority like this, I will ask, gentlemen, whether South Carolina has not manifested a high regard for the Union, when, under a tyranny ten times more grievous than the alien andsedition laws, she has hitherto gone no further than to petition, remonstrate, and to solemnly protest against a series of measures whichshe believes to be wholly unconstitutional and utterly destructive ofher interests. Sir, South Carolina has not gone one step further thanMr. Jefferson himself was disposed to go, in relation to the presentsubject of our present complaints--not a step further than the statesmenfrom New England were disposed to go under similar circumstances; nofurther than the Senator from Massachusetts himself once considered aswithin "the limits of a constitutional opposition. " The doctrine that itis the right of a State to judge of the violations of the Constitutionon the part of the Federal Government, and to protect her citizens fromthe operations of unconstitutional laws, was held by the enlightenedcitizens of Boston, who assembled in Faneuil Hall, on the 25th ofJanuary, 1809. They state, in that celebrated memorial, that "theylooked only to the State Legislature, which was competent to deviserelief against the unconstitutional acts of the General Government. Thatyour power (say they) is adequate to that object, is evident from theorganization of the confederacy. " * * * Thus it will be seen, Mr. President, that the South Carolina doctrine isthe Republican doctrine of '98, --that it was promulgated by the fathersof the faith, --that it was maintained by Virginia and Kentucky in theworst of times, --that it constituted the very pivot on which thepolitical revolution of that day turned, --that it embraces the veryprinciples, the triumph of which, at that time, saved the Constitutionat its last gasp, and which New England statesmen were not unwilling toadopt when they believed themselves to be the victims ofunconstitutional legislation. Sir, as to the doctrine that the FederalGovernment is the exclusive judge of the extent as well as thelimitations of its power, it seems to me to be utterly subversive of thesovereignty and independence of the States. It makes but littledifference, in my estimation, whether Congress or the Supreme Court areinvested with this power. If the Federal Government, in all, or any, ofits departments, is to prescribe the limits of its own authority, andthe States are bound to submit to the decision, and are not to beallowed to examine and decide for themselves when the barriers of theConstitution shall be overleaped, this is practically "a governmentwithout limitation of powers. " The States are at once reduced to merepetty corporations, and the people are entirely at your mercy. I havebut one word more to add. In all the efforts that have been made bySouth Carolina to resist the unconstitutional laws which Congress hasextended over them, she has kept steadily in view the preservation ofthe Union, by the only means by which she believes it can be longpreserved--a firm, manly, and steady resistance against usurpation. Themeasures of the Federal Government have, it is true, prostrated herinterests, and will soon involve the whole South in irretrievable ruin. But even this evil, great as it is, is not the chief ground of ourcomplaints. It is the principle involved in the contest--a principlewhich, substituting the discretion of Congress for the limitations ofthe Constitution, brings the States and the people to the feet of theFederal Government, and leaves them nothing they can call their own. Sir, if the measures of the Federal Government were less oppressive, weshould still strive against this usurpation. The South is acting on aprinciple she has always held sacred--resistance to unauthorizedtaxation. These, sir, are the principles which induced the immortalHampden to resist the payment of a tax of twenty shillings. Would twentyshillings have ruined his fortune? No! but the payment of half of twentyshillings, on the principle on which it was demanded, would have madehim a slave. Sir, if acting on these high motives--if animated by thatardent love of liberty which has always been the most prominent trait inthe Southern character, we would be hurried beyond the bounds of a coldand calculating prudence; who is there, with one noble and generoussentiment in his bosom, who would not be disposed, in the language ofBurke, to exclaim, "You must pardon something to the spirit of liberty?" DANIEL WEBSTER, --OF MASSACHUSETTS. (BORN 1782, DIED 1852. ) IN REPLY TO HAYNE, IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE, JANUARY 26, 1830. MR. PRESIDENT: When the mariner has been tossed for many days in thick weather, and onan unknown sea, he naturally avails himself of the first pause in thestorm, the earliest glance of the sun, to take his latitude, andascertain how far the elements have driven him from his true course. Letus imitate this prudence, and before we float further on the waves ofthis debate, refer to the point from which we departed, that we may atleast be able to conjecture where we now are. I ask for the reading ofthe resolution before the Senate. (The Secretary read the resolution, as follows:) "Resolved, That the Committee on Public Lands be instructed to inquireand report the quantity of public land remaining unsold within eachState and Territory, and whether it be expedient to limit for a certainperiod the sales of the public lands to such lands only as haveheretofore been offered for sale, and are now subject to entry at theminimum price. And, also, whether the office of Surveyor-General, andsome of the land offices, may not be abolished without detriment to thepublic interest; or whether it be expedient to adopt measures to hastenthe sales and extend more rapidly the surveys of the public lands. " We have thus heard, sir, what the resolution is which is actually beforeus for consideration; and it will readily occur to everyone, that it isalmost the only subject about which something has not been said in thespeech, running through two days, by which the Senate has beenentertained by the gentleman from South Carolina. Every topic in thewide range of our public affairs, whether past or present--every thing, general or local, whether belonging to national politics or partypolitics--seems to have attracted more or less of the honorable member'sattention, save only the resolution before the Senate. He has spoken ofevery thing but the public lands; they have escaped his notice. To thatsubject, in all his excursions, he has not paid even the cold respect ofa passing glance. When this debate, sir, was to be resumed, on Thursday morning, it sohappened that it would have been convenient for me to be elsewhere. Thehonorable member, however, did not incline to put off the discussion toanother day. He had a shot, he said, to return, and he wished todischarge it. That shot, sir, which he thus kindly informed us wascoming, that we might stand out of the way, or prepare ourselves to fallby it and die with decency, has now been received. Under all advantages, and with expectation awakened by the tone which preceded it, it has beendischarged, and has spent its force. It may become me to say no more ofits effect, than that, if nobody is found, after all, either killed orwounded, it is not the first time in the history of human affairs, thatthe vigor and success of the war have not quite come up to the lofty andsounding phrase of the manifesto. The gentleman, sir, in declining to postpone the debate, told theSenate, with the emphasis of his hand upon his heart, that there wassomething rankling here, which he wished to relieve. (Mr. Hayne rose, and disclaimed having used the word rankling. ) It would not, Mr. President, be safe for the honorable member to appeal to those aroundhim, upon the question whether he did in fact make use of that word. Buthe may have been unconscious of it. At any rate, it is enough that hedisclaims it. But still, with or without the use of that particularword, he had yet something here, he said, of which he wished to ridhimself by an immediate reply. In this respect, sir, I have a greatadvantage over the honorable gentleman. There is nothing here, sir, which gives me the slightest uneasiness; neither fear, nor anger, northat which is sometimes more troublesome than either, the consciousnessof having been in the wrong. There is nothing, either originating here, or now received here by the gentleman's shot. Nothing originating here, for I had not the slightest feeling of unkindness toward the honorablemember. Some passages, it is true, had occurred since our acquaintancein this body, which I could have wished might have been otherwise; but Ihad used philosophy and forgotten them. I paid the honorable member theattention of listening with respect to his first speech; and when he satdown, though surprised, and I must even say astonished, at some of hisopinions, nothing was farther from my intention than to commence anypersonal warfare. Through the whole of the few remarks I made in answer, I avoided, studiously and carefully, every thing which I thoughtpossible to be construed into disrespect. And, Sir, while there is thusnothing originating here which I have wished at any time, or now wish, to discharge, I must repeat, also, that nothing has been received herewhich rankles, or in any way gives me annoyance. I will not accuse thehonorable member of violating the rules of civilized war; I will not saythat he poisoned his arrows. But whether his shafts were, or were not, dipped in that which would have caused rankling if they had reachedtheir destination, there was not, as it happened, quite strength enoughin the bow to bring them to their mark. If he wishes now to gather upthose shafts, he must look for them elsewhere; they will not be foundfixed and quivering in the object at which they were aimed. The honorable member complained that I slept on his speech. I must haveslept on it, or not slept at all. The moment the honorable member satdown, his friend from Missouri rose, and, with much honeyed commendationof the speech, suggested that the impressions which it had produced weretoo charming and delightful to be disturbed by other sentiments or othersounds, and proposed that the Senate should adjourn. Would it have beenquite amiable in me, Sir, to interrupt this excellent good feeling? MustI not have been absolutely malicious, if I could have thrust myselfforward, to destroy sensations thus pleasing? Was it not much better andkinder, both to sleep upon them myself, and to allow others also thepleasure of sleeping upon them? But if it be meant, by sleeping upon hisspeech, that I took time to prepare a reply to it, it is quite amistake. Owing to other engagements, I could not employ even theinterval between the adjournment of the Senate and its meeting the nextmorning, in attention to the subject of this debate. Nevertheless, Sir, the mere matter of fact is undoubtedly true. I did sleep on thegentleman's speech, and slept soundly. And I slept equally well on hisspeech of yesterday, to which I am now replying. It is quite possiblethat in this respect, also, I possess some advantage over the honorablemember, attributable, doubtless, to a cooler temperament on my part;for, in truth, I slept upon his speeches remarkably well. But the gentleman inquires why HE was made the object of such a reply. Why was he singled out? If an attack has been made on the East, he, heassures us, did not begin it; it was made by the gentleman fromMissouri. Sir, I answered the gentleman's speech because I happened tohear it; and because, also, I choose to give an answer to that speech, which, if unanswered, I thought most likely to produce injuriousimpressions. I did not stop to inquire who was the original drawer ofthe bill. I found a responsible indorser before me, and it was mypurpose to hold him liable, and to bring him to his just responsibilitywithout delay. But, sir, this interrogatory of the honorable member wasonly introductory to another. He proceeded to ask me whether I hadturned upon him in this debate, from the consciousness that I shouldfind an overmatch, if I ventured on a contest with his friend fromMissouri. If, sir, the honorable member, _modestiae gratia_, had chosenthus to defer to his friend, and to pay him compliments, withoutintentional disparagement to others, it would have been quite accordingto the friendly courtesies of debate, and not at all ungrateful to myown feelings. I am not one of those, sir, who esteem any tribute ofregard, whether light and occasional, or more serious and deliberate, which may be bestowed on others, as so much unjustly withholden fromthemselves. But the tone and the manner of the gentleman's questionforbid me thus to interpret it. I am not at liberty to consider it asnothing more than a civility to his friend. It had an air of taunt anddisparagement, something of the loftiness of asserted superiority, whichdoes not allow me to pass it over without notice. It was put as aquestion for me to answer, and so put as if it were difficult for me toanswer whether I deemed the member from Missouri an overmatch for myselfin debate here. It seems to me, sir, that this is extraordinarylanguage, and an extraordinary tone, for the discussions of this body. Matches and overmatches! Those terms are more applicable elsewhere thanhere, and fitter for other assemblies than this. Sir, the gentlemanseems to forget where and what we are. This is a Senate, a Senate ofequals, of men of individual honor and personal character, and ofabsolute independence. We know no masters, we acknowledge no dictators. This is a hall for mutual consultation and discussion; not an arena forthe exhibition of champions. I offer myself, sir, as a match for no man;I throw the challenge of debate at no man's feet. But then, sir, sincethe honorable member has put the question in a manner that calls for ananswer, I will give him an answer; and I tell him, that, holding myselfto be the humblest of the members here, I yet know nothing in the arm ofhis friend from Missouri, either alone or when aided by the arm of hisfriend from South Carolina, that need deter even me from espousingwhatever opinions I may choose to espouse, from debating whenever I maychoose to debate, or from speaking whatever I may see fit to say, on thefloor of the Senate. Sir, when uttered as matter of commendation orcompliment, I should dissent from nothing which the honorable membermight say of his friend. Still less do I put forth any pretensions of myown. But when put to me as a matter of taunt, I throw it back, and sayto the gentleman, that he could possibly say nothing less likely thansuch a comparison to wound my pride of personal character. The anger ofits tone rescued the remark from intentional irony, which otherwise, probably, would have been its general acceptation. But, sir, if it beimagined by this mutual quotation and commendation; if it be supposedthat, by casting the characters of the drama, assigning to each hispart, to one the attack, to another the cry of onset; or if it bethought that, by a loud and empty vaunt of anticipated victory, anylaurels are to be won here; if it be imagined, especially, that any, orall of these things will shake any purpose of mine, I can tell thehonorable member, once for all, that he is greatly mistaken, and that heis dealing with one of whose temper and character he has yet much tolearn. Sir, I shall not allow myself, on this occasion, I hope on nooccasion, to be betrayed into any loss of temper; but if provoked, as Itrust I never shall be, into crimination and recrimination, thehonorable member may, perhaps, find that in that contest, there will beblows to take as well as blows to give; that others can statecomparisons as significant, at least, as his own, and that his impunitymay possibly demand of him whatever powers of taunt and sarcasm he maypossess. I commend him to a prudent husbandry of his resources. On yet another point, I was still more unaccountably misunderstood. Thegentlemen had harangued against "consolidation. " I told him, in reply, that there was one kind of consolidation to which I was attached, andthat was the consolidation of our Union; that this was precisely thatconsolidation to which I feared others were not attached, and that suchconsolidation was the very end of the Constitution, the leading object, as they had informed us themselves, which its framers had kept in view. I turned to their communication, and read their very words, "theconsolidation of the Union, " and expressed my devotion to this sort ofconsolidation. I said, in terms, that I wished not in the slightestdegree to augment the powers of this government; that my object was topreserve, not to enlarge; and that by consolidating the Union Iunderstood no more than the strengthening of the Union, and perpetuatingit. Having been thus explicit, having thus read from the printed bookthe precise words which I adopted, as expressing my own sentiments, itpasses comprehension how any man could understand me as contending foran extension of the powers of the government, or for consolidation inthat odious sense in which it means an accumulation, in the FederalGovernment, of the powers properly belonging to the States. I repeat, sir, that, in adopting the sentiments of the framers of theConstitution, I read their language audibly, and word for word; and Ipointed out the distinction, just as fully as I have now done, betweenthe consolidation of the Union and that other obnoxious consolidationwhich I disclaim. And yet the honorable member misunderstood me. Thegentleman had said that he wished for no fixed revenue, --not a shilling. If by a word he could convert the Capitol into gold, he would not do it. Why all this fear of revenue? Why, sir, because, as the gentleman toldus, it tends to consolidation. Now this can mean neither more nor lessthan that a common revenue is a common interest, and that all commoninterests tend to preserve the union of the States. I confess I likethat tendency; if the gentleman dislikes it, he is right in deprecatinga shilling of fixed revenue. So much, sir, for consolidation. * * * Professing to be provoked by what he chose to consider a charge made byme against South Carolina, the honorable member, Mr. President, hastaken up a crusade against New England. Leaving altogether the subjectof the public lands, in which his success, perhaps, had been neitherdistinguished nor satisfactory, and letting go, also, of the topic ofthe tariff, he sallied forth in a general assault on the opinions, politics, and parties of New England, as they have been exhibited in thelast thirty years. New England has, at times, so argues the gentleman, held opinions asdangerous as those which he now holds. Suppose this were so; how shouldhe therefore abuse New England? If he find himself countenanced by actsof hers, how is it that, while he relies on these acts, he covers, orseeks to cover, their authors with reproach? But, sir, if in the courseof forty years, there have been undue effervescences of party in NewEngland, has the same thing happened nowhere else? Party animosity andparty outrage, not in New England, but elsewhere, denounced PresidentWashington, not only as a Federalist, but as a Tory, a British agent, aman who in his high office sanctioned corruption. But does the honorablemember suppose, if I had a tender here who should put such an effusionof wickedness and folly into my hand, that I would stand up and read itagainst the South? Parties ran into great heats again in 1799 and 1800. What was said, sir, or rather what was not said, in those years, againstJohn Adams, one of the committee that drafted the Declaration ofIndependence, and its admitted ablest defender on the floor of Congress?If the gentleman wishes to increase his stores of party abuse and frothyviolence, if he has a determined proclivity to such pursuits, there aretreasures of that sort south of the Potomac, much to his taste, yetuntouched. I shall not touch them. * * * The gentleman's purveyors haveonly catered for him among the productions of one side. I certainlyshall not supply the deficiency by furnishing him samples of the other. I leave to him, and to them, the whole concern. It is enough for me tosay, that if, in any part of their grateful occupation, if, in all theirresearches, they find any thing in the history of Massachusetts, or ofNew England, or in the proceedings of any legislative or other publicbody, disloyal to the Union, speaking slightingly of its value, proposing to break it up, or recommending non-intercourse withneighboring States, on account of difference in political opinion, then, sir, I give them all up to the honorable gentleman's unrestrainedrebuke; expecting, however, that he will extend his buffetings in likemanner, to all similar proceedings, wherever else found. * * * Mr. President, in carrying his warfare, such as it is, into New England, the honorable gentleman all along professes to be acting on thedefensive. He chooses to consider me as having assailed South Carolina, and insists that he comes forth only as her champion, and in herdefence. Sir, I do not admit that I made any attack whatever on SouthCarolina. Nothing like it. The honorable member, in his first speech, expressed opinions, in regard to revenue and some other topics, which Iheard with both pain and surprise. I told the gentleman I was aware thatsuch sentiments were entertained out of the Government, but had notexpected to find them advanced in it; that I knew there were persons inthe South who speak of our Union with indifference or doubt, takingpains to magnify its evils, and to say nothing of its benefits; that thehonorable member himself, I was sure, could never be one of these; and Iregretted the expression of such opinions as he had avowed, because Ithought their obvious tendency was to encourage feelings of disrespectto the Union, and to impair its strength. This, sir, is the sum andsubstance of all I said on the abject. And this constitutes the attackwhich called on the chivalry of the gentleman, in his own opinion, toharry us with such a foray among the party pamphlets and partyproceedings in Massachusetts! If he means that I spoke withdissatisfaction or disrespect of the ebullitions of individuals in SouthCarolina, it is true. But if he means that I assailed the character ofthe State, her honor, or patriotism, that I reflected on her history orher conduct, he has not the slightest grounds for any such assumption. ** * I shall not acknowledge that the honorable member goes before me inregard for whatever of distinguished talent or distinguished characterSouth Carolina has produced. I claim part of the honor, I partake in thepride of her great names. I claim them for my countrymen, one and all, the Laurenses, the Rutledges, the Pinckneys, the Sumpters, theMarions, --Americans all, whose fame is no more to be hemmed in by Statelines than their talents and patriotism were capable of beingcircumscribed within the same narrow limits. In their day and generationthey served and honored the country, and the whole country; and theirrenown is of the treasures of the whole country. Him whose honored namethe gentleman himself bears--does he esteem me less capable of gratitudefor his patriotism, or sympathy for his sufferings, than if his eyes hadfirst opened upon the light of Massachusetts, instead of South Carolina?Sir, does he suppose it in his power to exhibit a Carolina name sobright as to produce envy in my bosom? No, sir; increased gratificationand delight, rather. I thank God that, if I am gifted with little of thespirit which is able to raise mortals to the skies, I have yet none, asI trust, of that other spirit which would drag angels down. When I shallbe found, sir, in my place here in the Senate, or elsewhere, to sneer atpublic merit, because it happens to spring up beyond the little limitsof my own State or neighborhood; when I refuse, for any such cause, orfor any cause, the homage due to American talent, to elevatedpatriotism, to sincere devotion to liberty and the country; or, if I seean uncommon endowment of Heaven, if I see extraordinary capacity andvirtue, in any son of the South; and if, moved by local prejudices organgrened by State jealousy, I get up here to abate the tithe of a hairfrom his just character and just fame, may my tongue cleave to the roofof my mouth! Sir, let me recur to pleasing recollections; let me indulge inrefreshing remembrances of the past; let me remind you that, in earlytimes, no States cherished greater harmony, both of principle andfeeling, than Massachusetts and South Carolina. Would to God thatharmony might again return! Shoulder to shoulder they went through theRevolution, hand in hand they stood round the administration ofWashington, and felt his own great arm lean on them for support. Unkindfeeling, if it exist, alienation, and distrust, are the growth, unnatural to such soils, of false principles since sown. They are weeds, the seeds of which that same great arm never scattered. Mr. President, I shall enter upon no encomium of Massachusetts; sheneeds none. There she is. Behold her, and judge for yourselves. There isher history; the world knows it by heart. The past, at least, is secure. There is Boston, and Concord, and Lexington, and Bunker Hill; and therethey will remain for ever. The bones of her sons, falling in the greatstruggle for Independence, now lie mingled with the soil of every Statefrom New England to Georgia, and there they will lie forever. And, sir, where American Liberty raised its first voice, and where its youth wasnurtured and sustained, there it still lives, in the strength of itsmanhood, and full of its original spirit. If discord and disunion shallwound it, if party strife and blind ambition shall hawk and tear it, iffolly and madness, if uneasiness under salutary and necessary restraintshall succeed in separating it from that Union, by which alone itsexistence is made sure, it will stand, in the end, by the side of thatcradle in which its infancy was rocked; it will stretch forth its armwith whatever of vigor it may still retain, over the friends who gatherround it; and it will fall at last, if fall it must, amidst theprofoundest monuments of its own glory, and on the very spot of itsorigin. There yet remains to be performed, Mr. President, by far the most graveand important duty which I feel to be devolved upon me by this occasion. It is to state, and to defend, what I conceive to be the true principlesof the Constitution under which we are here assembled. I might well havedesired that so weighty a task should have fallen into other and ablerhands. I could have wished that it should have been executed by thosewhose character and experience give weight and influence to theiropinions, such as cannot possibly belong to mine. But, sir, I have metthe occasion, not sought it; and I shall proceed to state my ownsentiments, without challenging for them any particular regard, withstudied plainness, and as much precision as possible. I understand the honorable gentleman from South Carolina to maintainthat it is a right of the State Legislatures to interfere whenever, intheir judgment, this government transcends its constitutional limits, and to arrest the operation of its laws. I understand him to maintain this right, as a right existing under theConstitution, not as a right to overthrow it on the ground of extremenecessity, such as would justify violent revolution. I understand him to maintain an authority on the part of the States, thus to interfere, for the purpose of correcting the exercise of powerby the General Government, of checking it and of compelling it toconform to their opinion of the extent of its powers. I understand him to maintain, that the ultimate power of judging of theconstitutional extent of its own authority is not lodged exclusively inthe General Government, or any branch of it; but that, on the contrary, the States may lawfully decide for themselves, and each State foritself, whether, in a given case, the act of the General Governmenttranscends its power. I understand him to insist, that, if the exigencies of the case, in theopinion of any State government, require it, such State government may, by its own sovereign authority, annul an act of the General Governmentwhich it deems plainly and palpably unconstitutional. This is the sum of what I understand from him to be the South Carolinadoctrine, and the doctrine which he maintains. I propose to consider it, and compare it with the Constitution. Allow me to say, as a preliminaryremark, that I call this the South Carolina doctrine only because thegentleman himself has so denominated it. I do not feel at liberty to saythat South Carolina, as a State, has ever advanced these sentiments. Ihope she has not, and never may. That a great majority of her people areopposed to the tariff laws, is doubtless true. That a majority, somewhatless than that just mentioned, conscientiously believe these lawsunconstitutional, may probably also be true. But that any majority holdsto the right of direct State interference at State discretion, the rightof nullifying acts of Congress by acts of State legislation, is morethan I know, and what I shall be slow to believe. That there are individuals besides the honorable gentleman who domaintain these opinions, is quite certain. I recollect the recentexpression of a sentiment, which circumstances attending its utteranceand publication justify us in supposing was not unpremeditated. "Thesovereignty of the State, --never to be controlled, construed, or decidedon, but by her own feelings of honorable justice. " [Mr. HAYNE here rose and said, that, for the purpose of being clearlyunderstood, he would state that his proposition was in the words of theVirginia resolution as follows: "That this assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that itviews the powers of the Federal Government, as resulting from thecompact to which the States are parties, as limited by the plain senseand intention of the instrument constituting that compact, as no farthervalid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact;and that, in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise ofother powers not granted by the said compact. The States that areparties thereto have the right, and are in duty bound to interpose forarresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within theirrespective limits the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining tothem. " Mr. WEBSTER resumed:] I am quite aware, Mr. President, of the existence of the resolutionwhich the gentleman read, and has now repeated, and that he relies on itas his authority. I know the source, too, from which it is understood tohave proceeded. I need not say that I have much respect for theconstitutional opinions of Mr. Madison; they would weigh greatly with mealways. But before the authority of his opinion be vouched for thegentleman's proposition, it will be proper to consider what is the fairinterpretation of that resolution, to which Mr. Madison is understood tohave given his sanction. As the gentleman construes it, it is anauthority for him. Possibly, he may not have adopted the rightconstruction. That resolution declares, that, in the case of thedangerous exercise of powers not granted by the General Government, theStates may interpose to arrest the progress of the evil. But howinterpose, and what does this declaration purport? Does it mean no morethan that there may be extreme cases, in which the people, in any modeof assembling, may resist usurpation, and relieve themselves from atyrannical government? No one will deny this. Such resistance is notonly acknowledged to be just in America, but in England also. Blackstoneadmits as much, in the theory, and practice, too, of the EnglishConstitution. We, sir, who oppose the Carolina doctrine, do not denythat the people may, if they choose, throw off any government when itbecomes oppressive and intolerable, and erect a better in its stead. Weall know that civil institutions are established for the public benefit, and that when they cease to answer the ends of their existence they maybe changed. But I do not understand the doctrine now contended for to bethat, which, for the sake of distinction, we may call the right ofrevolution. I understand the gentleman to maintain, that, withoutrevolution, without civil commotion, without rebellion, a remedy forsupposed abuse and transgression of the powers of the General Governmentlies in a direct appeal to the interference of the State governments. [Mr. HAYNE here arose and said: He did not contend for the mere right ofrevolution, but for the right of constitutional resistance. What hemaintained was, that in a case of plain, palpable violation of theConstitution by the General Government, a State may interpose; and thatthis interposition is constitutional. Mr. WEBSTER resumed:] So, sir, I understood the gentleman, and am happy to find that I did notmisunderstand him. What he contends for is, that it is constitutional tointerrupt the administration of the Constitution itself, in the hands ofthose who are chosen and sworn to administer it, by the directinterference, in form of law, of the States, in virtue of theirsovereign capacity. The inherent right in the people to reform theirgovernment I do not deny; and they have another right, and that is, toresist unconstitutional laws, without overturning the government. It isno doctrine of mine that unconstitutional laws bind the people. Thegreat question is, Whose prerogative is it to decide on theconstitutionality or unconstitutionality of the laws? On that, the maindebate hinges. The proposition, that, in case of a supposed violation ofthe Constitution by Congress, the States have a constitutional right tointerfere and annul the law of Congress is the proposition of thegentleman. I do not admit it. If the gentleman had intended no more thanto assert the right of revolution for justifiable cause, he would havesaid only what all agree to. But I cannot conceive that there can be amiddle course, between submission to the laws, when regularly pronouncedconstitutional, on the one hand, and open resistance, which isrevolution or rebellion, on the other. I say, the right of a State toannul a law of Congress cannot be maintained, but on the ground of theinalienable right of man to resist oppression; that is to say, upon theground of revolution. I admit that there is an ultimate violent remedy, above the Constitution and in defiance of the Constitution, which may beresorted to when a revolution is to be justified. But I do not admit, that, under the Constitution and in conformity with it, there is anymode in which a State government, as a member of the Union, caninterfere and stop the progress of the General Government, by force ofher own laws, under any circumstances whatever. This leads us to inquire into the origin of this government and thesource of its power. Whose agent is it? Is it the creature of the StateLegislatures, or the creature of the people? If the Government of theUnited States be the agent of the State governments, then they maycontrol it, provided they can agree in the manner of controlling it; ifit be the agent of the people, then the people alone can control it, restrain it, modify, or reform it. It is observable enough, that thedoctrine for which the honorable gentleman contends leads him to thenecessity of maintaining, not only that this General Government is thecreature of the States, but that it is the creature of each of theStates, severally, so that each may assert the power for itself ofdetermining whether it acts within the limits of its authority. It isthe servant of four-and-twenty masters, of different wills and differentpurposes, and yet bound to obey all. This absurdity (for it seems noless) arises from a misconception as to the origin of this governmentand its true character. It is, sir, the people's Constitution, thepeople's government, made for the people, made by the people, andanswerable to the people. The people of the United States have declaredthat this Constitution shall be supreme law. We must either admit theproposition, or deny their authority. The States are, unquestionably, sovereign, so far as their sovereignty is not affected by this supremelaw. But the State Legislatures, as political bodies, however sovereign, are yet not sovereign over the people. So far as the people have givenpower to the General Government, so far the grant is unquestionablygood, and the Government holds of the people, and not of the Stategovernments. We are all agents of the same supreme power, the people. The General Government and the State governments derive their authorityfrom the same source. Neither can, in relation to the other, be calledprimary, though one is definite and restricted, and the other generaland residuary. The National Government possesses those powers which itcan be shown the people have conferred on it, and no more. All the restbelongs to the State governments, or to the people themselves. So far asthe people have restrained State sovereignty by the expression of theirwill, in the Constitution of the United States, so far, it must beadmitted, State sovereignty is effectually controlled. I do not contendthat it is, or ought to be, controlled farther. The sentiment to which Ihave referred propounds that State sovereignty is only to be controlledby its own "feeling of justice"--that is to say, it is not to becontrolled at all, for one who is to follow his own feelings is under nolegal control. Now, however men may think this ought to be, the fact isthat the people of the United States have chosen to impose control onState sovereignties. There are those, doubtless, who wish they had beenleft without restraint; but the Constitution has ordered the matterdifferently. To make war, for instance, is an exercise of sovereignty;but the Constitution declares that no State shall make war. To coinmoney is another exercise of sovereign power; but no State is at libertyto coin money. Again, the Constitution says that no sovereign Stateshall be so sovereign as to make a treaty. These prohibitions, it mustbe confessed, are a control on the State sovereignty of South Carolina, as well as of the other States, which does not arise "from her ownfeelings of honorable justice. " The opinion referred to, therefore, isin defiance of the plainest provisions of the Constitution. There are other proceedings of public bodies which have already beenalluded to, and to which I refer again, for the purpose of ascertainingmore fully what is the length and breadth of that doctrine denominatedthe Carolina doctrine, which the honorable member has now stood up onthis floor to maintain. In one of them I find it resolved, that "thetariff of 1828, and every other tariff designed to promote one branch ofindustry at the expense of others, is contrary to the meaning andintention of the federal compact, and such a dangerous, palpable, anddeliberate usurpation of power, by a determined majority, wielding theGeneral Government beyond the limits of its delegated powers, as callsupon the States which compose the suffering minority, in their sovereigncapacity, to exercise the powers which, as sovereigns, necessarilydevolve upon them when their contract is violated. " Observe, sir, that this resolution holds the tariff of 1828, and everyother tariff designed to promote one branch of industry at the expenseof another, to be such a dangerous, palpable, and deliberate usurpationof power, as calls upon the States, in their sovereign capacity, tointerfere by their own authority. This denunciation, Mr. President, youwill please to observe, includes our old tariff of 1816, as well as allothers; because that was established to promote the interest of themanufacturers of cotton, to the manifest and admitted injury of theCalcutta cotton trade. Observe, again, that all the qualifications arehere rehearsed and charged upon the tariff, which are necessary to bringthe case within the gentleman's proposition. The tariff is a usurpation;it is a dangerous usurpation; it is a palpable usurpation; it is adeliberate usurpation. It is such a usurpation, therefore, as calls uponthe States to exercise their right of interference. Here is a case, then, within the gentleman's principles, and all his qualifications ofhis principles. It is a case for action. The Constitution is plainly, dangerously, palpably, and deliberately violated; and the States mustinterpose their own authority to arrest the law. Let us suppose theState of South Carolina to express the same opinion, by the voice of herLegislature. That would be very imposing; but what then? It so happensthat, at the very moment, when South Carolina resolves that the tarifflaws are unconstitutional, Pennsylvania and Kentucky resolve exactly thereverse. They hold those laws to be both highly proper and strictlyconstitutional. And now, sir, how does the honorable member propose todeal with this case? How does he relieve us from this difficulty uponany principle of his? His construction gets us into it; how does hepropose to get us out? In Carolina the tariff is a palpable, deliberate usurpation; Carolina, therefore, may nullify it, and refuse to pay the duties. In Pennsylvaniait is both clearly constitutional and highly expedient; and there theduties are to be paid. And yet we live under a government of uniformlaws, and under a constitution, too, which contains an expressprovision, as it happens, that all duties shall be equal in all States. Does not this approach absurdity? If there be no power to settle such questions, independent of either ofthe States, is not the whole Union a rope of sand? Are we not thrownback again precisely upon the old Confederation? It is too plain to be argued. Four-and-twenty interpreters ofconstitutional law, each with a power to decide for itself, and nonewith authority to bind any body else, and this constitutional law theonly bond of their union! What is such a state of things but a mereconnection during pleasure, or to use the phraseology of the times, during feeling? And that feeling, too, not the feeling of the people, who established the Constitution, but the feeling of the Stategovernments. In another of the South Carolina addresses, having premised that thecrisis requires "all the concentrated energy of passion, " an attitude ofopen resistance to the laws of the Union is advised. Open resistance tothe laws, then, is the constitutional remedy, the conservative power ofthe State, which the South Carolina doctrines teach for the redress ofpolitical evils, real or imaginary. And its authors further say, that, appealing with confidence to the Constitution itself, to justify theiropinions, they cannot consent to try their accuracy by the courts ofjustice. In one sense, indeed, sir, this is assuming an attitude of openresistance in favor of liberty. But what sort of liberty? The liberty ofestablishing their own opinions, in defiance of the opinions of allothers; the liberty of judging and deciding exclusively themselves, in amatter in which others have as much right to judge and decide as they;the liberty of placing their own opinion above the judgment of allothers, above the laws, and above the Constitution. This is theirliberty, and this is the fair result of the proposition contended for bythe honorable gentleman. Or, it may be more properly said, it isidentical with it, rather than a result from it. * * * Sir, the human mind is so constituted, that the merits of both sides ofa controversy appear very clear, and very palpable, to those whorespectively espouse them; and both sides usually grow clearer as thecontroversy advances. South Carolina sees unconstitutionality in thetariff; she sees oppression there also, and she sees danger. Pennsylvania, with a vision not less sharp, looks at the same tariff, and sees no such thing in it; she sees it all constitutional, alluseful, all safe. The faith of South Carolina is strengthened byopposition, and she now not only sees, but resolves, that the tariff ispalpably unconstitutional, oppressive, and dangerous; but Pennsylvania, not to be behind her neighbors, and equally willing to strengthen herown faith by a confident asseveration resolves, also, and gives to everywarm affirmative of South Carolina, a plain, downright, Pennsylvanianegative. South Carolina, to show the strength and unity of her opinion, brings her assembly to a unanimity, within seven voices; Pennsylvania, not to be outdone in this respect any more than in others, reduces herdissentient fraction to a single vote. Now, sir, again, I ask thegentleman, What is to be done? Are these States both right? Is he boundto consider them both right? If not, which is in the wrong? or, rather, which has the best right to decide? And if he, and if I, are not to knowwhat the Constitution means, and what it is, till those two Statelegislatures, and the twenty-two others, shall agree in itsconstruction, what have we sworn to, when we have sworn to maintain it?I was forcibly struck, sir, with one reflection, as the gentleman wenton in his speech. He quoted Mr. Madison's resolutions, to prove that aState may interfere, in a case of deliberate, palpable, and dangerousexercise of a power not granted. The honorable member supposes thetariff law to be such an exercise of power; and that consequently a casehas arisen in which the State may, if it see fit, interfere by its ownlaw. Now it so happens, nevertheless, that Mr. Madison deems this sametariff law quite constitutional. Instead of a clear and palpableviolation, it is, in his judgment, no violation at all. So that, whilethey use his authority in a hypothetical case, they reject it in thevery case before them. All this, sir, shows the inherent futility, I hadalmost used a stronger word, of conceding this power of interference tothe State, and then attempting to secure it from abuse by imposingqualifications of which the States themselves are to judge. One of twothings is true; either the laws of the Union are beyond the discretionand beyond the control of the States; or else we have no constitution ofgeneral government, and are thrust back again to the days of theConfederation. * * * I must now beg to ask, sir, whence is this supposed right of the Statesderived? Where do they find the power to interfere with the laws of theUnion? Sir, the opinion which the honorable gentleman maintains, is anotion founded in a total misapprehension, in my judgment, of the originof this government, and of the foundation on which it stands. I hold itto be a popular government, erected by the people; those who administerit, responsible to the people; and itself capable of being amended andmodified, just as the people may choose it should be. It is as popular, just as truly emanating from the people, as the State governments. It iscreated for one purpose; the State governments for another. It has itsown powers; they have theirs. There is no more authority with them toarrest the operation of a law of Congress, than with Congress to arrestthe operation of their laws. We are here to administer a constitutionemanating immediately from the people, and trusted by them to ouradministration. It is not the creature of the State governments. This government, sir, is the independent off-spring of the popular will. It is not the creature of State legislatures; nay, more, if the wholetruth must be told, the people brought it into existence, establishedit, and have hitherto supported it, for the very purpose amongst others, of imposing certain salutary restraints on State sovereignties. TheStates cannot now make war; they cannot contract alliances; they cannotmake, each for itself, separate regulations of commerce; they cannot layimposts; they cannot coin money. If this Constitution, sir, be thecreature of State legislatures, it must be admitted that it has obtaineda strange control over the volitions of its creators. The people, then, sir, erected this government. They gave it aconstitution, and in that constitution they have enumerated the powerswhich they bestow on it. They have made it a limited government. Theyhave defined its authority. They have restrained it to the exercise ofsuch powers as are granted; and all others, they declare, are reservedto the States, or the people. But, sir, they have not stopped here. Ifthey had, they would have accomplished but half their work. Nodefinition can be so clear as to avoid the possibility of doubt; nolimitation so precise, as to exclude all uncertainty. Who, then, shallconstrue this grant of the people? Who shall interpret their will, whereit may be supposed they have left it doubtful? With whom do they reposethis ultimate right of deciding on the powers of the government? Sir, they have settled all this in the fullest manner. They have left it withthe government itself, in its appropriate branches. Sir, the very chiefend, the main design, for which the whole Constitution was framed andadopted, was to establish a government that should not be obliged to actthrough State agency, or depend on State opinion or State discretion. The people had had quite enough of that kind of government under theConfederation. Under that system, the legal action, the application oflaw to individuals, belonged exclusively to the States. Congress couldonly recommend; their acts were not of binding force, till the Stateshad adopted and sanctioned them. Are we in that condition still? Are weyet at the mercy of State discretion and State construction? Sir, if weare, then vain will be our attempt to maintain the Constitution underwhich we sit. But, sir, the people have wisely provided, in the Constitution itself, aproper, suitable mode and tribunal for settling questions ofconstitutional law. There are in the Constitution grants of powers toCongress, and restrictions on these powers. There are also prohibitionson the States. Some authority must, therefore, necessarily exist, havingthe ultimate jurisdiction to fix and ascertain the interpretation ofthese grants, restrictions, and prohibitions. The Constitution hasitself pointed out, ordained, and established that authority. How has itaccomplished this great and essential end? By declaring, sir, that "theConstitution and the laws of the United States made in pursuancethereof, shall be the supreme law of the land, any thing in theConstitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. " This, sir, was the first great step. By this the supremacy of theConstitution and the laws of the United States is declared. The peopleso will it. No State law is to be valid which comes in conflict with theConstitution, or any law of the United States passed in pursuance of it. But who shall decide this question of interference? To whom lies thelast appeal? This, sir, the Constitution itself decides also, bydeclaring, "that the judicial power shall extend to all cases arisingunder the Constitution and laws of the United States. " These twoprovisions cover the whole ground. They are, in truth, the keystone ofthe arch! With these it is a government, without them a confederation. In pursuance of these clear and express provisions, Congressestablished, at its very first session, in the judicial act, a mode forcarrying them into full effect, and for bringing all questions ofconstitutional power to the final decision of the Supreme Court. Itthen, sir, became a government. It then had the means ofself-protection; and but for this, it would, in all probability, havebeen now among things which are past. Having constituted the Government, and declared its powers, the people have further said, that, sincesomebody must decide on the extent of these powers, the Government shallitself decide; subject, always, like other popular governments, to itsresponsibility to the people. And now, sir, I repeat, how is it that aState legislature acquires any power to interfere? Who, or what givesthem the right to say to the people: "We, who are your agents andservants for one purpose, will undertake to decide, that your otheragents and servants, appointed by you for another purpose, havetranscended the authority you gave them!" The reply would be, I think, not impertinent: "Who made you a judge over another's servants? To theirown masters they stand or fall. " Sir, I deny this power of State legislatures altogether. It cannot standthe test of examination. Gentlemen may say, that, in an extreme case, aState government may protect the people from intolerable oppression. Sir, in such a case the people might protect themselves without the aidof the State governments. Such a case warrants revolution. It must make, when it comes, a law for itself. A nullifying act of a State legislaturecannot alter the case, nor make resistance any more lawful. Inmaintaining these sentiments, sir, I am but asserting the rights of thepeople. I state what they have declared, and insist on their right todeclare it. They have chosen to repose this power in the General Government, and Ithink it my duty to support it like other constitutional powers. For myself, sir, I do not admit the competency of South Carolina or anyother State to prescribe my constitutional duty; or to settle, betweenme and the people the validity of laws of Congress for which I havevoted. I decline her umpirage. I have not sworn to support theConstitution according to her construction of the clauses. I have notstipulated by my oath of office or otherwise, to come under anyresponsibility, except to the people, and those whom they have appointedto pass upon the question, whether laws, supported by my votes, conformto the Constitution of the country. And, sir, if we look to the generalnature of the case, could any thing have been more preposterous than tomake a government for the whole Union, and yet leave its powers subject, not to one interpretation, but to thirteen or twenty-fourinterpretations? Instead of one tribunal, established by all, responsible to all, with power to decide for all, shall constitutionalquestions be left to four-and-twenty popular bodies, each at liberty todecide for itself, and none bound to respect the decisions of others;and each at liberty, too, to give a new constitution on every newelection of its own members? Would any thing, with such a principle init, or rather with such a destitution of all principle be fit to becalled a government? No, sir. It should not be denominated aconstitution. It should be called, rather, a collection of topics foreverlasting controversy; heads of debate for a disputatious people. Itwould not be a government. It would not be adequate to any practicalgood, or fit for any country to live under. To avoid all possibility of being misunderstood, allow me to repeatagain in the fullest manner, that I claim no powers for the governmentby forced or unfair construction. I admit that it is a government ofstrictly limited powers; of enumerated, specified, and particularizedpowers; and that whatsoever is not granted is withheld. Butnotwithstanding all this, and however the grant of powers may beexpressed, its limit and extent may yet, in some cases, admit of doubt;and the General Government would be good for nothing, it would beincapable of long existing, if some mode had not been provided in whichthose doubts as they should arise, might be peaceably butauthoritatively solved. And now, Mr. President, let me run the honorable gentleman's doctrine alittle into its practical application. Let us look at his probable_modus operandi_. If a thing can be done, an ingenious man can tell howit is to be done, and I wish to be informed how this State interferenceis to be put in practice, without violence, bloodshed, and rebellion. Wewill take the existing case of the tariff law. South Carolina is said tohave made up her opinion upon it. If we do not repeal it (as we probablyshall not), she will then apply to the case the remedy of her doctrine. She will, we must suppose, pass a law of her legislature, declaring theseveral acts of Congress, usually called the tariff laws, null and void, so far as they respect South Carolina, or the citizens thereof. So far, all is a paper transaction, and easy enough. But the collector atCharleston is collecting the duties imposed by these tariff laws. He, therefore, must be stopped. The collector will seize the goods if thetariff duties are not paid. The State authorities will undertake theirrescue, the marshal, with his posse, will come to the collector's aid, and here the contest begins. The militia of the State will be called outto sustain the nullifying act. They will march, sir, under a verygallant leader; for I believe the honorable member himself commands themilitia of that part of the State. He will raise the NULLIFYING ACT onhis standard, and spread it out as his banner! It will have a preamble, setting forth, that the tariff laws are palpable, deliberate, anddangerous violations of the Constitution! He will proceed, with thisbanner flying, to the custom-house in Charleston, "All the while, Sonorous metal blowing martial sounds. " Arrived at the custom-house, he will tell the collector that he mustcollect no more duties under any of the tariff laws. This he will besomewhat puzzled to say, by the way, with a grave countenance, considering what hand South Carolina herself had in that of 1816. But, sir, the collector would not, probably, desist at his bidding. He wouldshow him the law of Congress, the treasury instruction, and his own oathof office. He would say, he should perform his duty, come what comemight. Here would ensue a pause; for they say that a certain stillness precedesthe tempest. The trumpeter would hold his breath awhile, and before allthis military array should fall on the custom-house, collector, clerks, and all, it is very probable some of those composing it would request oftheir gallant commander-in-chief to be informed upon a little point oflaw; for they have doubtless, a just respect for his opinions as alawyer, as well as for his bravery as a soldier. They know he has readBlackstone and the Constitution, as well as Turenne and Vauban. Theywould ask him, therefore, somewhat concerning their rights in thismatter. They would inquire whether it was not somewhat dangerous toresist a law of the United States. What would be the nature of theiroffence, they would wish to learn, if they, by military force and array, resisted the execution in Carolina of a law of the United States, and itshould turn out, after all, that the law was constitutional? He wouldanswer, of course, treason. No lawyer could give any other answer. JohnFries, he would tell them, had learned that some years ago. "How, then, "they would ask, "do you propose to defend us? We are not afraid ofbullets, but treason has a way of taking people off that we do not muchrelish. How do you propose to defend us?" "Look at my floating banner, "he would reply; "see there the nullifying law!" "Is it your opinion, gallant commander, " they would then say, "that, ifwe should be indicted for treason, that same floating banner of yourswould make a good plea in bar?" "South Carolina is a sovereign State, "he would reply. "That is true; but would the judge admit our plea?""These tariff laws, " he would repeat, "are unconstitutional, palpably, deliberately, dangerously. " "That may all be so; but if the tribunalshould not happen to be of that opinion, shall we swing for it? We areready to die for our country, but it is rather an awkward business, thisdying without touching the ground! After all, that is a sort of hemp taxworse than any part of the tariff. " Mr. President, the honorable gentleman would be in a dilemma, like thatof another great general. He would have a knot before him which he couldnot untie. He must cut it with his sword. He must say to his followers, "Defend yourselves with your bayonets"; and this is war--civil war. Direct collision, therefore, between force and force, is the unavoidableresult of that remedy for the revision of unconstitutional laws whichthe gentleman contends for. It must happen in the very first case towhich it is applied. Is not this the plain result? To resist by forcethe execution of a law, generally, is treason. Can the courts of theUnited States take notice of the indulgence of a State to committreason? The common saying, that a State cannot commit treason herself, is nothing to the purpose. Can she authorize others to do it? If JohnFries had produced an act of Pennsylvania, annulling the law ofCongress, would it have helped his case? Talk about it as we will, thesedoctrines go the length of revolution. They are incompatible with anypeaceable administration of the government. They lead directly todisunion and civil commotion; and therefore it is, that at theircommencement, when they are first found to be maintained by respectablemen, and in a tangible form, I enter my public protest against them all. The honorable gentleman argues that, if this Government be the solejudge of the extent of its own powers, whether that right of judging bein Congress or the Supreme Court, it equally subverts State sovereignty. This the gentleman sees, or thinks he sees, although he cannot perceivehow the right of judging, in this matter, if left to the exercise ofState legislatures, has any tendency to subvert the government of theUnion. The gentleman's opinion may be, that the right ought not to havebeen lodged with the General Government; he may like better such aConstitution as we should have had under the right of Stateinterference; but I ask him to meet me on the plain matter of fact. Iask him to meet me on the Constitution itself. I ask him if the power isnot found there, clearly and visibly found there? But, sir, what is this danger, and what are the grounds of it? Let it beremembered that the Constitution of the United States is notunalterable. It is to continue in its present form no longer than thepeople who established it shall choose to continue it. If they shallbecome convinced that they have made an injudicious or inexpedientpartition and distribution of power between the State governments andthe General Government, they can alter that distribution at will. If any thing be found in the national Constitution, either by originalprovision or subsequent interpretation, which ought not to be in it, thepeople know how to get rid of it. If any construction, unacceptable tothem, be established so as to become practically a part of theConstitution, they will amend it, at their own sovereign pleasure. Butwhile the people choose to maintain it as it is, while they aresatisfied with it, and refuse to change it, who has given, or who cangive, to the legislatures a right to alter it, either by interference, construction, or otherwise? Gentlemen do not seem to recollect that thepeople have any power to do any thing for themselves. They imagine thereis no safety for them, any longer than they are under the closeguardianship of the State legislatures. Sir, the people have not trustedtheir safety, in regard to the General Constitution, to these hands. They have required other security, and taken other bonds. They havechosen to trust themselves, first, to the plain words of the instrument, and to such construction as the Government themselves, in doubtfulcases, should put on their powers, under their oaths of office, andsubject to their responsibility to them, just as the people of a Statetrust to their own governments with a similar power. Secondly, they havereposed their trust in the efficacy of frequent elections, and in theirown power to remove their own servants and agents whenever they seecause. Thirdly, they have reposed trust in the judicial power, which, in orderthat it might be trustworthy, they have made as respectable, asdisinterested, and as independent as was practicable. Fourthly, theyhave seen fit to rely, in case of necessity, or high expediency, ontheir known and admitted power to alter or amend the Constitution, peaceably and quietly, whenever experience shall point out defects orimperfections. And, finally, the people of the United States have at notime, in no way, directly or indirectly, authorized any Statelegislature to construe or interpret their high instrument ofgovernment; much less to interfere, by their own power, to arrest itscourse and operation. If, sir, the people in these respects had done otherwise than they havedone, their Constitution could neither have been preserved, nor would ithave been worth preserving. And if its plain provisions shall now bedisregarded, and these new doctrines interpolated in it, it will becomeas feeble and helpless a being as its enemies, whether early or morerecent, could possibly desire. It will exist in every State but as apoor dependent on State permission. It must borrow leave to be; and willbe, no longer than State pleasure, or State discretion, sees fit togrant the indulgence, and to prolong its poor existence. But, sir, although there are fears, there are hopes also. The peoplehave preserved this, their own chosen Constitution, for forty years, andhave seen their happiness, prosperity, and renown grow with its growth, and strengthen with its strength. They are now, generally, stronglyattached to it. Overthrown by direct assault, it cannot be; evaded, undermined, NULLIFIED, it will not be, if we, and those who shallsucceed us here, as agents and representatives of the people, shallconscientiously and vigilantly discharge the two great branches of ourpublic trust, faithfully to preserve and wisely to administer it. Mr. President, I have thus stated the reasons of my dissent to thedoctrines which have been advanced and maintained. I am conscious ofhaving detained you and the Senate much too long. I was drawn into thedebate with no previous deliberation, such as is suited to thediscussion of so grave and important a subject. But it is a subject ofwhich my heart is full, and I have not been willing to suppress theutterance of its spontaneous sentiments. I cannot, even now, persuademyself to relinquish it, without expressing, once more my deepconviction, that, since it respects nothing less than the union of theStates, it is of most vital and essential importance to the publichappiness. I profess, sir, in my career hitherto, to have kept steadilyin view the prosperity and honor of the whole country, and thepreservation of our Federal Union. It is to that Union we owe our safetyat home, and our consideration and dignity abroad. It is to that Unionthat we are chiefly indebted for whatever makes us most proud of ourcountry. That Union we reached only by the discipline of our virtues inthe severe school of adversity. It had its origin in the necessities ofdisordered finance, prostrate commerce, and ruined credit. Under itsbenign influences, these great interests immediately awoke, as from thedead, and sprang forth with newness of life. Every year of its durationhas teemed with fresh proofs of its utility and its blessings; andalthough our territory has stretched out wider and wider, and ourpopulation spread farther and farther, they have not outrun itsprotection or its benefits. It has been to us all a copious fountain ofnational, social, and personal happiness. I have not allowed myself, sir, to look beyond the Union, to see whatmight lie hidden in the dark recess behind. I have not coolly weighedthe chances of preserving liberty when the bonds that unite us togethershall be broken asunder. I have not accustomed myself to hang over theprecipice of disunion, to see whether, with my short sight, I can fathomthe depth of the abyss below; nor could I regard him as a safecounsellor in the affairs of this Government, whose thoughts should bemainly bent on considering, not how the Union may be best preserved, buthow tolerable might be the condition of the people when it should bebroken up and destroyed. While the Union lasts we have high, exciting, gratifying prospects spread out before us, for us and our children. Beyond that I seek not to penetrate the veil. God grant that in my dayat least that curtain may not rise! God grant that on my vision nevermay be opened what lies behind! When my eyes shall be turned to beholdfor the last time the sun in heaven, may I not see him shining on thebroken and dishonored fragments of a once glorious Union, on Statesdissevered, discordant, belligerent; on a land rent with civil feuds, ordrenched, it may be, in fraternal blood! Let their last feeble andlingering glance rather behold the gorgeous ensign of the Republic, nowknown and honored through-out the earth, still full high advanced, itsarms and trophies streaming in their original lustre, not a stripeerased or polluted, not a single star obscured, bearing for its motto, no such miserable interrogotary as "What is all this worth?" nor thoseother words of delusion and folly, "Liberty first and Union afterward";but everywhere, spread all over in characters of living light, blazingon all its ample folds, as they float over the sea and over the land, and in every wind under the whole heavens, that other sentiment, dear toevery true American heart, --Liberty and Union, now and forever, one andinseparable! JOHN C. CALHOUN --OF SOUTH CAROLINA. (BORN 1782, DIED 1850. ) ON NULLIFICATION AND THE FORCE BILL, IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE, FEB. 15, 1833. MR. PRESIDENT: At the last session of Congress, it was avowed on all sides that thepublic debt, as to all practical purposes, was in fact paid, the smallsurplus remaining being nearly covered by the money in the Treasury andthe bonds for duties which had already accrued; but with the arrival ofthis event our last hope was doomed to be disappointed. After a longsession of many months, and the most earnest effort on the part of SouthCarolina and the other Southern States to obtain relief, all that couldbe effected was a small reduction in the amount of the duties, but areduction of such a character that, while it diminished the amount ofburden, it distributed that burden more unequally than even theobnoxious act of 1828; reversing the principle adopted by the bill of1816, of laying higher duties on the unprotected than the protectedarticles, by repealing almost entirely the duties laid upon the former, and imposing the burden almost entirely on the latter. It was thus that, instead of relief--instead of an equal distribution of burdens andbenefits of the government, on the payment of the debt, as had beenfondly anticipated, --the duties were so arranged as to be, in fact, bounties on one side and taxation on the other; thus placing the twogreat sections of the country in direct conflict in reference to itsfiscal action, and thereby letting in that flood of political corruptionwhich threatens to sweep away our Constitution and our liberty. This unequal and unjust arrangement was pronounced, both by theadministration, through its proper organ, the Secretary of the Treasury, and by the opposition, to be a permanent adjustment; and it was thusthat all hope of relief through the action of the General Governmentterminated; and the crisis so long apprehended at length arrived, atwhich the State was compelled to choose between absolute acquiescence ina ruinous system of oppression, or a resort to her reservedpowers--powers of which she alone was the rightful judge, and whichonly, in this momentous juncture, could save her. She determined on thelatter. The consent of two thirds of her Legislature was necessary for the callof a convention, which was considered the only legitimate organ throughwhich the people, in their sovereignty, could speak. After an arduousstruggle the States-right party succeeded; more than two thirds of bothbranches of the Legislature favorable to a convention were elected; aconvention was called--the ordinance adopted. The convention wassucceeded by a meeting of the Legislature, when the laws to carry theordinance into execution were enacted--all of which have beencommunicated by the President, have been referred to the Committee onthe Judiciary, and this bill is the result of their labor. Having now corrected some of the prominent misrepresentations as to thenature of this controversy, and given a rapid sketch of the movement ofthe State in reference to it, I will next proceed to notice someobjections connected with the ordinance and the proceedings under it. The first and most prominent of these is directed against what is calledthe test oath, which an effort has been made to render odious. So farfrom deserving the denunciation that has been levelled against it, Iview this provision of the ordinance as but the natural result of thedoctrines entertained by the State, and the position which she occupies. The people of Carolina believe that the Union is a union of States, andnot of individuals; that it was formed by the States, and that thecitizens of the several States were bound to it through the acts oftheir several States; that each State ratified the Constitution foritself, and that it was only by such ratification of a State that anyobligation was imposed upon its citizens. Thus believing, it is theopinion of the people of Carolina that it belongs to the State which hasimposed the obligation to declare, in the last resort, the extent ofthis obligation, as far as her citizens are concerned; and this upon theplain principles which exist in all analogous cases of compact betweensovereign bodies. On this principle the people of the State, acting intheir sovereign capacity in convention, precisely as they did in theadoption of their own and the Federal Constitution, have declared, bythe ordinance, that the acts of Congress which imposed duties under theauthority to lay imposts, were acts not for revenue, as intended by theConstitution, but for protection, and therefore null and void. Theordinance thus enacted by the people of the State themselves, acting asa sovereign community, is as obligatory on the citizens of the State asany portion of the Constitution. In prescribing, then, the oath to obeythe ordinance, no more was done than to prescribe an oath to obey theConstitution. It is, in fact, but a particular oath of allegiance, andin every respect similar to that which is prescribed, under theConstitution of the United States, to be administered to all theofficers of the State and Federal Governments; and is no more deservingthe harsh and bitter epithets which have been heaped upon it than thator any similar oath. It ought to be borne in mind that, according to theopinion which prevails in Carolina, the right of resistance to theunconstitutional acts of Congress belongs to the State, and not to herindividual citizens; and that, though the latter may, in a mere questionof _meum_ and _tuum_, resist through the courts an unconstitutionalencroachment upon their rights, yet the final stand against usurpationrests not with them, but with the State of which they are members; andsuch act of resistance by a State binds the conscience and allegiance ofthe citizen. But there appears to be a general misapprehension as to theextent to which the State has acted under this part of the ordinance. Instead of sweeping every officer by a general proscription of theminority, as has been represented in debate, as far as my knowledgeextends, not a single individual has been removed. The State has, infact, acted with the greatest tenderness, all circumstances considered, toward citizens who differed from the majority; and, in that spirit, hasdirected the oath to be administered only in the case of some officialact directed to be performed in which obedience to the ordinance isinvolved. * * *' It is next objected that the enforcing acts, have legislated the UnitedStates out of South Carolina. I have already replied to this objectionon another occasion, and will now but repeat what I then said: that theyhave been legislated out only to the extent that they had no right toenter. The Constitution has admitted the jurisdiction of the UnitedStates within the limits of the several States only so far as thedelegated powers authorize; beyond that they are intruders, and mayrightfully be expelled; and that they have been efficiently expelled bythe legislation of the State through her civil process, as has beenacknowledged on all sides in the debate, is only a confirmation of thetruth of the doctrine for which the majority in Carolina have contended. The very point at issue between the two parties there is, whethernullification is a peaceful and an efficient remedy against anunconstitutional act of the General Government, and may be asserted, assuch, through the State tribunals. Both parties agree that the actsagainst which it is directed are unconstitutional and oppressive. Thecontroversy is only as to the means by which our citizens may beprotected against the acknowledged encroachments on their rights. Thisbeing the point at issue between the parties, and the very object of themajority being an efficient protection of the citizens through the Statetribunals, the measures adopted to enforce the ordinance, of coursereceived the most decisive character. We were not children, to act byhalves. Yet for acting thus efficiently the State is denounced, and thisbill reported, to overrule, by military force, the civil tribunal andcivil process of the State! Sir, I consider this bill, and the argumentswhich have been urged on this floor in its support, as the mosttriumphant acknowledgment that nullification is peaceful and efficient, and so deeply intrenched in the principles of our system, that it cannotbe assailed but by prostrating the Constitution, and substituting thesupremacy of military force in lieu of the supremacy of the laws. Infact, the advocates of this bill refute their own argument. They tell usthat the ordinance is unconstitutional; that it infracts theconstitution of South Carolina, although, to me, the objection appearsabsurd, as it was adopted by the very authority which adopted theconstitution itself. They also tell us that the Supreme Court is theappointed arbiter of all controversies between a State and the GeneralGovernment. Why, then, do they not leave this controversy to thattribunal? Why do they not confide to them the abrogation of theordinance, and the laws made in pursuance of it, and the assertion ofthat supremacy which they claim for the laws of Congress? The Statestands pledged to resist no process of the court. Why, then, confer onthe President the extensive and unlimited powers provided in this bill?Why authorize him to use military force to arrest the civil process ofthe State? But one answer can be given: That, in a contest between theState and the General Government, if the resistance be limited on bothsides to the civil process, the State, by its inherent sovereignty, standing upon its reserved powers, will prove too powerful in such acontroversy, and must triumph over the Federal Government, sustained byits delegated and limited authority; and in this answer we have anacknowledgment of the truth of those great principles for which theState has so firmly and nobly contended. * * * Notwithstanding all that has been said, I may say that neither theSenator from Delaware (Mr. Clayton), nor any other who has spoken on thesame side, has directly and fairly met the great question at issue: Isthis a Federal Union? a union of States, as distinct from that ofindividuals? Is the sovereignty in the several States, or in theAmerican people in the aggregate? The very language which we arecompelled to use when speaking of our political institutions, affordsproof conclusive as to its real character. The terms union, federal, united, all imply a combination of sovereignties, a confederation ofStates. They never apply to an association of individuals. Who everheard of the United State of New York, of Massachusetts, or of Virginia?Who ever heard the term federal or union applied to the aggregation ofindividuals into one community? Nor is the other point less clear--thatthe sovereignty is in the several States, and that our system is a unionof twenty-four sovereign powers, under a constitutional compact, and notof a divided sovereignty between the States severally and the UnitedStates? In spite of all that has been said, I maintain that sovereigntyis in its nature indivisible. It is the supreme power in a State, and wemight just as well speak of half a square, or half of a triangle, as ofhalf a sovereignty. It is a gross error to confound the exercise ofsovereign powers with sovereignty itself, or the delegation of suchpowers with the surrender of them. A sovereign may delegate his powersto be exercised by as many agents as he may think proper, under suchconditions and with such limitations as he may impose; but to surrenderany portion of his sovereignty to another is to annihilate the whole. The Senator from Delaware (Mr. Clayton) calls this metaphysicalreasoning, which he says he cannot comprehend. If by metaphysics hemeans that scholastic refinement which makes distinctions withoutdifference, no one can hold it in more utter contempt than I do; but if, on the contrary, he means the power of analysis and combination--thatpower which reduces the most complex idea into its elements, whichtraces causes to their first principle, and, by the power ofgeneralization and combination, unites the whole in one harmonioussystem--then, so far from deserving contempt, it is the highestattribute of the human mind. It is the power which raises man above thebrute--which distinguishes his faculties from mere sagacity, which heholds in common with inferior animals. It is this power which has raisedthe astronomer from being a mere gazer at the stars to the highintellectual eminence of a Newton or a Laplace, and astronomy itselffrom a mere observation of insulated facts into that noble science whichdisplays to our admiration the system of the universe. And shall thishigh power of the mind, which has effected such wonders when directed tothe laws which control the material world, be forever prohibited, undera senseless cry of metaphysics, from being applied to the high purposesof political science and legislation? I hold them to be subject to lawsas fixed as matter itself, and to be as fit a subject for theapplication of the highest intellectual power. Denunciation may, indeedfall upon the philosophical inquirer into these first principles, as itdid upon Galileo and Bacon, when they first unfolded the greatdiscoveries which have immortalized their names; but the time will comewhen truth will prevail in spite of prejudice and denunciation, and whenpolitics and legislation will be considered as much a science asastronomy and chemistry. In connection with this part of the subject, I understood the Senatorfrom Virginia (Mr. Rives) to say that sovereignty was divided, and thata portion remained with the States severally, and that the residue wasvested in the Union. By Union, I suppose the Senator meant the UnitedStates. If such be his meaning--if he intended to affirm that thesovereignty was in the twenty-four States, in whatever light he may viewthem, our opinions will not disagree; but according to my conception, the whole sovereignty is in the several States, while the exercise ofsovereign power is divided--a part being exercised under compact, through this General Government, and the residue through the separateState Governments. But if the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Rives) means toassert that the twenty-four States form but one community, with a singlesovereign power as to the objects of the Union, it will be but therevival of the old question, of whether the Union is a union betweenStates, as distinct communities, or a mere aggregate of the Americanpeople, as a mass of individuals; and in this light his opinions wouldlead directly to consolidation. * * * Disguise it as you may, the controversy is one between power andliberty; and I tell the gentlemen who are opposed to me, that, as strongas may be the love of power on their side, the love of liberty is stillstronger on ours. History furnishes many instances of similar struggles, where the love of liberty has prevailed against power under everydisadvantage, and among them few more striking than that of our ownRevolution; where, as strong as was the parent country, and feeble aswere the colonies, yet, under the impulse of liberty, and the blessingof God, they gloriously triumphed in the contest. There are, indeed, many striking analogies between that and the present controversy. Theyboth originated substantially in the same cause--with thisdifference--in the present case, the power of taxation is converted intothat of regulating industry; in the other, the power of regulatingindustry, by the regulation of commerce, was attempted to be convertedinto the power of taxation. Were I to trace the analogy further, weshould find that the perversion of the taxing power, in the one case, has given precisely the same control to the Northern section over theindustry of the Southern section of the Union, which the power toregulate commerce gave to Great Britain over the industry of thecolonies in the other; and that the very articles in which the colonieswere permitted to have a free trade, and those in which themother-country had a monopoly, are almost identically the same as thosein which the Southern States are permitted to have a free trade by theact of 1832, and in which the Northern States have, by the same act, secured a monopoly. The only difference is in the means. In the former, the colonies were permitted to have a free trade with all countriessouth of Cape Finisterre, a cape in the northern part of Spain; whilenorth of that, the trade of the colonies was prohibited, except throughthe mother-country, by means of her commercial regulations. If wecompare the products of the country north and south of Cape Finisterre, we shall find them almost identical with the list of the protected andunprotected articles contained in the list of last year. Nor does theanalogy terminate here. The very arguments resorted to at thecommencement of the American Revolution, and the measures adopted, andthe motives assigned to bring on that contest (to enforce the law), arealmost identically the same. But to return from this digression to the consideration of the bill. Whatever difference of opinion may exist upon other points, there is oneon which I should suppose there can be none; that this bill rests uponprinciples which, if carried out, will ride over State sovereignties, and that it will be idle for any advocates hereafter to talk of Staterights. The Senator from Virginia (Mr. Rives) says that he is theadvocate of State rights; but he must permit me to tell him that, although he may differ in premises from the other gentlemen with whom heacts on this occasion, yet, in supporting this bill, he obliteratesevery vestige of distinction between him and them, saving only that, professing the principles of '98, his example will be more perniciousthan that of the most open and bitter opponent of the rights of theStates. I will also add, what I am compelled to say, that I mustconsider him (Mr. Rives) as less consistent than our old opponents, whose conclusions were fairly drawn from their premises, while hispremises ought to have led him to opposite conclusions. The gentlemanhas told us that the new-fangled doctrines, as he chooses to call them, have brought State rights into disrepute. I must tell him, in reply, that what he calls new-fangled are but the doctrines of '98; and that itis he (Mr. Rives), and others with him, who, professing these doctrines, have degraded them by explaining away their meaning and efficacy. He(Mr. R. ) has disclaimed, in behalf of Virginia, the authorship ofnullification. I will not dispute that point. If Virginia chooses tothrow away one of her brightest ornaments, she must not hereaftercomplain that it has become the property of another. But while I have, as a representative of Carolina, no right to complain of the disavowalof the Senator from Virginia, I must believe that he (Mr. R. ) has donehis native State great injustice by declaring on this floor, that whenshe gravely resolved, in '98, that "in cases of deliberate and dangerousinfractions of the Constitution, the States, as parties to the compact, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose to arrest theprogress of the evil, and to maintain within their respective limits theauthorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them, " she meant nomore than to proclaim the right to protest and to remonstrate. Tosuppose that, in putting forth so solemn a declaration, which sheafterward sustained by so able and elaborate an argument, she meant nomore than to assert what no one had ever denied, would be to supposethat the State had been guilty of the most egregious trifling that everwas exhibited on so solemn an occasion. THOMAS H. BENTON, OF MISSOURI. (BORN 1782, DIED 1858. ) ON THE EXPUNGING RESOLUTION --UNITED STATES SENATE, JANUARY 12, 1837 MR. PRESIDENT: It is now near three years since the resolve was adopted by the Senate, which it is my present motion to expunge from the journal. At the momentthat this resolve was adopted, I gave notice of my intention to move toexpunge it; and then expressed my confident belief that the motion wouldeventually prevail. That expression of confidence was not an ebullitionof vanity, or a presumptuous calculation, intended to accelerate theevent it affected to foretell. It was not a vain boast, or an idleassumption, but was the result of a deep conviction of the injusticedone President Jackson, and a thorough reliance upon the justice of theAmerican people. I felt that the President had been wronged; and myheart told me that this wrong would be redressed! The event proves thatI was not mistaken. The question of expunging this resolution has beencarried to the people, and their decision has been had upon it. Theydecide in favor of the expurgation; and their decision has been bothmade and manifested, and communicated to us in a great variety of ways. A great number of States have expressly instructed their senators tovote for this expurgation. A very great majority of the States haveelected senators and representatives to Congress, upon the expressground of favoring this expurgation. The Bank of the United States, which took the initiative in the accusation against the President, andfurnished the material, and worked the machinery which was used againsthim, and which was then so powerful on this floor, has become more andmore odious to the public mind, and musters now but a slender phalanx offriends in the two Houses of Congress. The late Presidential electionfurnishes additional evidence of public sentiment. The candidate who wasthe friend of President Jackson, the supporter of his administration, and the avowed advocate for the expurgation, has received a largemajority of the suffrages of the whole Union, and that after an expressdeclaration of his sentiments on this precise point. The evidence of thepublic will, exhibited in all these forms, is too manifest to bemistaken, too explicit to require illustration, and too imperative to bedisregarded. Omitting details and specific enumeration of proofs, Irefer to our own files for the instructions to expunge, --to thecomplexion of the two Houses for the temper of the people, --to thedenationalized condition of the Bank of the United States for the fateof the imperious accuser, --and to the issue of the Presidential electionfor the answer of the Union. All these are pregnant proofs of the public will, and the lastpreeminently so: because, both the question of the expurgation, and theform of the process, were directly put in issue upon it. * * * Assuming, then, that we have ascertained the will of the people on thisgreat question, the inquiry presents itself, how far the expression ofthat will ought to be conclusive of our action here. I hold that itought to be binding and obligatory upon us; and that, not only upon theprinciples of representative government, which requires obedience to theknown will of the people, but also in conformity to the principles uponwhich the proceeding against President Jackson was conducted when thesentence against him was adopted. Then everything was done with especialreference to the will of the people. Their impulsion was assumed to bethe sole motive to action; and to them the ultimate verdict wasexpressly referred. The whole machinery of alarm and pressure--everyengine of political and moneyed power--was put in motion, and worked formany months, to excite the people against the President; and to stir upmeetings, memorials, petitions, travelling committees, and distressdeputations against him; and each symptom of popular discontent washailed as an evidence of public will, and quoted here as proof that thepeople demanded the condemnation of the President. Not only legislativeassemblies, and memorials from large assemblies, were then produced hereas evidence of public opinion, but the petitions of boys under age, theremonstrances of a few signers, and the results of the mostinconsiderable elections were ostentatiously paraded and magnified, asthe evidence of the sovereign will of our constituents. Thus, sir, thepublic voice was everything, while that voice, partially obtainedthrough political and pecuniary machinations, was adverse to thePresident. Then the popular will was the shrine at which all worshipped. Now, when that will is regularly, soberly, repeatedly, and almostuniversally expressed through the ballot-boxes, at the variouselections, and turns out to be in favor of the President, certainly noone can disregard it, nor otherwise look at it than as the solemnverdict of the competent and ultimate tribunal upon an issue fairly madeup, fully argued, and duly submitted for decision. As such verdict, Ireceive it. As the deliberate verdict of the sovereign people, I bow toit. I am content. I do not mean to reopen the case nor to re-commencethe argument. I leave that work to others, if any others choose toperform it. For myself, I am content; and, dispensing with furtherargument, I shall call for judgment, and ask to have execution done, upon that unhappy journal, which the verdict of millions of freemenfinds guilty of bearing on its face an untrue, illegal, andunconstitutional sentence of condemnation against the approved Presidentof the Republic. But, while declining to reopen the argument of this question, andrefusing to tread over again the ground already traversed, there isanother and a different task to perform; one which the approachingtermination of President Jackson's administration makes peculiarlyproper at this time, and which it is my privilege, and perhaps my duty, to execute, as being the suitable conclusion to the arduous contest inwhich we have been so long engaged. I allude to the general tenor of hisadministration, and to its effect, for good or for evil, upon thecondition of his country. This is the proper time for such a view to betaken. The political existence of this great man now draws to a close. In little more than forty days he ceases to be an object of politicalhope to any, and should cease to be an object of political hate, orenvy, to all. Whatever of motive the servile and time-serving might havefound in his exalted station for raising the altar of adulation, andburning the incense of praise before him, that motive can no longerexist. The dispenser of the patronage of an empire, the chief of thisgreat confederacy of States, is soon to be a private individual, stripped of all power to reward, or to punish. His own thoughts, as hehas shown us in the concluding paragraph of that message which is to bethe last of its kind that we shall ever receive from him, are directedto that beloved retirement from which he was drawn by the voice ofmillions of freemen, and to which he now looks for that interval ofrepose which age and infirmities require. Under these circumstances, heceases to be a subject for the ebullition of the passions, and passesinto a character for the contemplation of history. Historically, then, shall I view him; and limiting this view to his civil administration, Idemand, where is there a chief magistrate of whom so much evil has beenpredicted, and from whom so much good has come? Never has any manentered upon the chief magistracy of a country under such appallingpredictions of ruin and woe! never has any one been so pursued withdireful prognostications! never has any one been so beset and impeded bya powerful combination of political and moneyed confederates! never hasany one in any country where the administration of justice has risenabove the knife or the bowstring, been so lawlessly and shamelesslytried and condemned by rivals and enemies, without hearing, withoutdefence, without the forms of law and justice! History has beenransacked to find examples of tyrants sufficiently odious to illustratehim by comparison. Language has been tortured to find epithetssufficiently strong to paint him in description. Imagination has beenexhausted in her efforts to deck him with revolting and inhumanattributes. Tyrant, despot, usurper; destroyer of the liberties of hiscountry; rash, ignorant, imbecile; endangering the public peace with allforeign nations; destroying domestic prosperity at home; ruining allindustry, all commerce, all manufactures; annihilating confidencebetween man and man; delivering up the streets of populous cities tograss and weeds, and the wharves of commercial towns to the encumbranceof decaying vessels; depriving labor of all reward; depriving industryof all employment; destroying the currency; plunging an innocent andhappy people from the summit of felicity to the depths of misery, want, and despair. Such is the faint outline, followed up by actualcondemnation, of the appalling denunciations daily uttered against thisone MAN, from the moment he became an object of political competition, down to the concluding moment of his political existence. The sacred voice of inspiration has told us that there is a time for allthings. There certainly has been a time for every evil that human natureadmits of to be vaticinated of President Jackson's administration;equally certain the time has now come for all rational and well-disposedpeople to compare the predictions with the facts, and to ask themselvesif these calamitous prognostications have been verified by events? Havewe peace, or war, with foreign nations? Certainly, we have peace withall the world! peace with all its benign, and felicitous, andbeneficent influences! Are we respected, or despised abroad? Certainlythe American name never was more honored throughout the four quarters ofthe globe than in this very moment. Do we hear of indignity or outragein any quarter? of merchants robbed in foreign ports? of vesselssearched on the high seas? of American citizens impressed into foreignservice? of the national flag insulted anywhere? On the contrary, we seeformer wrongs repaired; no new ones inflicted. France pays twenty-fivemillions of francs for spoliations committed thirty years ago; Naplespays two millions one hundred thousand ducats for wrongs of the samedate; Denmark pays six hundred and fifty thousand rix-dollars for wrongsdone a quarter of a century ago; Spain engages to pay twelve millions ofreals vellon for injuries of fifteen years' date; and Portugal, the lastin the list of former aggressors, admits her liability and only waitsthe adjustment of details to close her account by adequate indemnity. Sofar from war, insult, contempt, and spoliation from abroad, thisdenounced administration has been the season of peace and good will andthe auspicious era of universal reparation. So far from suffering injuryat the hands of foreign powers, our merchants have received indemnitiesfor all former injuries. It has been the day of accounting, ofsettlement, and of retribution. The total list of arrearages, extendingthrough four successive previous administrations, has been closed andsettled up. The wrongs done to commerce for thirty years back, and underso many different Presidents, and indemnities withheld from all, havebeen repaired and paid over under the beneficent and gloriousadministration of President Jackson. But one single instance of outragehas occurred, and that at the extremities of the world, and by apiratical horde, amenable to no law but the law of force. The Malays ofSumatra committed a robbery and massacre upon an American vessel. Wretches! they did not then know that JACKSON was President of theUnited States! and that no distance, no time, no idle ceremonial oftreating with robbers and assassins, was to hold back the arm ofjustice. Commodore Downes went out. His cannon and his bayonets struckthe outlaws in their den. They paid in terror and in blood for theoutrage which was committed; and the great lesson was taught to thesedistant pirates--to our antipodes themselves, --that not even the entirediameter of this globe could protect them, and that the name of Americancitizen, like that of Roman citizen in the great days of the Republicand of the empire, was to be the inviolable passport of all that wore itthroughout the whole extent of the habitable world. * * * From President Jackson, the country has first learned the true theoryand practical intent of the Constitution, in giving to the Executive aqualified negative on the legislative power of Congress. Far from beingan odious, dangerous, or kingly prerogative, this power, as vested inthe President, is nothing but a qualified copy of the famous veto powervested in the tribunes of the people among the Romans, and intended tosuspend the passage of a law until the people themselves should havetime to consider it? The qualified veto of the President destroysnothing; it only delays the passage of a law, and refers it to thepeople for their consideration and decision. It is the reference of alaw, not to a committee of the House, or of the whole House, but to thecommittee of the whole Union. It is a recommitment of the bill to thepeople, for them to examine and consider; and if, upon this examination, they are content to pass it, it will pass at the next session. The delayof a few months is the only effect of a veto, in a case where the peopleshall ultimately approve a law; where they do not approve it, theinterposition of the veto is the barrier which saves them the adoptionof a law, the repeal of which might afterwards be almost impossible. Thequalified negative is, therefore, a beneficent power, intended asGeneral Hamilton expressly declares in the Federalist, to protect, first, the executive department from the encroachments of thelegislative department; and, secondly, to preserve the people fromhasty, dangerous, or criminal legislation on the part of theirrepresentatives. This is the design and intention of the veto power; andthe fear expressed by General Hamilton was, that Presidents, so far fromexercising it too often, would not exercise it as often as the safety ofthe people required; that they might lack the moral courage to stakethemselves in opposition to a favorite measure of the majority of thetwo Houses of Congress; and thus deprive the people, in many instances, of their right to pass upon a bill before it becomes a final law. Thecases in which President Jackson has exercised the veto power have shownthe soundness of these observations. No ordinary President would havestaked himself against the Bank of the United States and the two Housesof Congress in 1832. It required President Jackson to confront thatpower--to stem that torrent--to stay the progress of that charter, andto refer it to the people for their decision. His moral courage wasequal to the crisis. He arrested the charter until it could be got tothe people, and they have arrested it forever. Had he not done so, thecharter would have become law, and its repeal almost impossible. Thepeople of the whole Union would now have been in the condition of thepeople of Pennsylvania, bestrode by the monster, in daily conflict withhim, and maintaining a doubtful contest for supremacy between thegovernment of a State and the directory of a moneyed corporation. Sir, I think it right, in approaching the termination of this greatquestion, to present this faint and rapid sketch of the brilliant, beneficent, and glorious administration of President Jackson. It is notfor me to attempt to do it justice; it is not for ordinary men toattempt its history. His military life, resplendent with dazzlingevents, will demand the pen of a nervous writer; his civiladministration, replete with scenes which have called into action somany and such various passions of the human heart, and which has givento native sagacity so many victories over practised politicians, willrequire the profound, luminous, and philosophical conceptions of a Livy, a Plutarch, or a Sallust. This history is not to be written in our day. The contemporaries of such events are not the hands to describe them. Time must first do its office--must silence the passions, remove theactors, develop consequences, and canonize all that is sacred to honor, patriotism, and glory. In after ages the historic genius of our Americashall produce the writers which the subject demands--men far removedfrom the contests of this day, who will know how to estimate this greatepoch, and how to acquire an immortality for their own names bypainting, with a master's hand, the immortal events of the patriotPresident's life. And now, sir, I finish the task which, three years ago, I imposed onmyself. Solitary and alone, and amidst the jeers and taunts of myopponents, I put this ball in motion. The people have taken it up, androlled it forward, and I am no longer anything but a unit in the vastmass which now propels it. In the name of that mass I speak. I demandthe execution of the edict of the people; I demand the expurgation ofthat sentence which the voice of a few senators, and the power of theirconfederate, the Bank of the United States, has caused to be placed onthe journal of the Senate; and which the voice of millions of freemenhas ordered to be expunged from it.