Register of Debates in Congress, Comprising the Leading Debates and Incidents of the Second Session of the Eighteenth Congress Page: 133
iv, (742 columns), 123, vii p. ; 25 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
.33
OF DEBATES IN CONGRESS.
134
Jan. 4, 1825.]
Niagara Sufferers.
[II. of R.
that they depended for shelter upon houses and other
buildings which were private property. Now, he would
farther ask, if the United States had built barracks and
magazines, whether they would not have been lawful
subjects of destruction? And if private houses were
used instead, where was the difference as to the right ?
The enemy might infer, from what had happened in
1812, that the same thing would happen again in 1813,
especially as no barracks had since been built; and. as
he knew that it was impossible for troops, in the month
of December, to remain in that climate without shelter,
it was his duty as a commander to divest them of the only
shelter they could obtain, w hich was in private houses.
Gentlemen had said that it does not appear that the
occupation was the motive for destruction ; but, Mr. F.
said, he would ask, does it appear that such was not the
motive!1 We know that, when Buffalo was destroyed,
there were 2500 men quartered there; and the enemy
found that, by destroying one village, he could put it
out of the power of our Government to maintain a single
post—to keep a singh- soldier on all that line of frontier
Was not this a sufficient motive ? Some gentlemen
seemed to disbelieve that these buildings were occupied
for military purposes at all. Hut surely all the testimo-
ny went that way; and if facts so well substantiated were
to be overturned by mere supposition, and by a theore-
tical view of national law, he knew not what use there
was in testimony, or how facts were ever to be ascer-
tained.
Other gentlemen had insisted that the burning of our
frontier, being on a principle of retaliation, was contra-
ry to the law of nations, and, therefore, the Government
is not bound to pay. But Mr. F. denied the position, and
iie defied them to show, in any approved writer on in-
ternational law, such a doctrine as that retaliation was
unlawful. The reverse was true. All writers admit that,
when retaliation is just, it may be practised as a means
to prevent the repetition of injury. Though we admit
that the burning of Newark was a barbarous act, yet the
retaliation of it was lawful on the part of the enemy—it
was only following the example we had set—and we had
rendered the act lawful by our own unlawful conduct in
the first place. When our Government commenced a
system of destruction of property, it must have known
that it incurred the risk of retaliation. It must have
known '.hat the burning of Newark rendered Buffalo un-
safe ; and, if Buffalo was afterwards destroyed, the Go-
vernment had itself to blame for it.
Bat, it had been argued by other gentlemen, that it
would be very bad policy to pay for these acts of depre-
dation, lest we should thereby induce the enemy to pur-
sue such a course in future wars, with a view to weaken
the Government by draining the Treasury. What! asked
Mr. Fahuklit, are we to be deterred from doing what is
in itself just by a principle of fear ?—fear of the enemy ?
Do we dread our enemies as if we had no means of reta-
liation in our power ? Sir, if the enemy do pursue such
a system we have a remedy at hand. When they burn
one town we will burn two—until, by a severe measure
of retaliation, we compel them to quit their predatory
system. We will meet them on their own ground; if
they forsake the course of regular and civilized warfare,
we will forsake it too for a time, till we drive them into
it again. Sir, if we are afraid of the enemy's depreda-
tions, we ought never to go to war. Are we to shrink
the moment he goes beyond a certain line, and fold our
hands for fear of our finances ? No ; but meet him in
every shape he chooses to assume.
I do not now attempt to justify the enemy in acts of
wanton outrage. Far from it; but I never yet heard or
met with an argument that satisfied me that the burning
of those buildings was not an act of legitimate warfare.
There was the whole power of the United States con-
centred, as it were, in a space of about 35 miles; the
British force was 3,000 miles from its native country.- and,
after reaching the American shores, had another thou-
sand to travel ere it reached the scene of action. Ours,
on the contrary, was close at home, with a country all
powerful hehind it What could render it necessary for
us to destroy the beautiful village of Newark ? All our
troops were on our own side of the line. Up to that time
no effort had been made, on the part of the Canadas, to
invade us, but every effort was made by us to invade
them. Canada was acting only on the defensive, and
there could be no plea of necessity for such an act. On
our side there was nothing from the head of Lake Onta-
rio to the outlet of Lake Erie, but the village of Buf-
falo ; nothing to excite either cupidity or malice. But
the moment Newark was burnt, the destruction of our
whole frontier was insured, the moment it should be in
the power of the British to effect it. It was melancholy
to contemplate such acts between those who claimed
to be the only Christian nations of the world: but they
have occurred, and we may now with propriety inquire
and reason on the causes which produced them.
Mr. MARTINDALE, of New York, then rose, and
observed that he was opposed to the amendment, and
should assign the reasons of his opposition lest thev
might be misunderstood. He was opposed to the present
modification of the bill because it established an unjust
distinction between the claimants, which was not found-
ed in reason and the nature of things, and which, in his
judgment, did not comport with the'justice and the mag-
nanimity of the American Government. The bill, even
in its original form, established, if rigidly interpreted,
some distinctions which he thought objectionable ; but
the amendments which had been proposed to it went to
increase them. By the bill it was required to be shown
that, when the buildings were destroyed, thev were in
the occupation of the United States, by orders of some
officer of the United States. Now the fact was, that
there had been, on that frontier, much occupation with-
out any such order. The whole country was little else
than a cantonment; the houses were made depots for
military stores or barracks for troops, and their destruc-
tion was as really caused by this, when it happened
without an order, as when it happened by an order.
Other buildings had been destroyed in consequence of
those immediately adjoining them having been thus oc-
cupied. The occupation of a building by the United
States thus made it a nuisance to those war it, and he
saw no reason which should induce the Government to
provide relief for one sufferer and not for all. The facts,
said Mr M. are before you; they are undisputed ; the
whole country suffered together; and shall the American
Government make distinctions between sufferers who had
no merit the one over the other, but endured a common
calamity ? I had rather extend the bill than retrench or
restrict it. Mr. M. insisted that there was no instance
in history of such losses not being compensated by Go-
vernment. What was the case at Newark ? No sooner
did the British Government hear of its destruction, than
they extended the liberal and the helping hand. The
claim was just, and the conduct of the Government po-
litic. It would be equally politic in us—nay, tenfold
more so. It would strengthen the confidence of the peo-
ple in their Government. But, do you, on the contrary,
seek to alienate the affection and the trust of your citi-
zens ? The very way to do so is, first to show yourselves
weak, and then show yourselves unjust also. Mr. M.
then recapitulated the facts of the case, as before stated,-
in debate, &c. As soon as the enemy had been irritated
by the burning of Newark, the whole American force
was withdrawn, and the frontier left defenceless. The
Government ought to pay the claims, were it only as an
act of penance for such an instance of folly. He pro-
tested against any investigation of the motives of the ene-
my—ridiculed the plea of the Treasury's being in dan-
ger from the amount of the claims. What, asked Mr. M.
in the Treasury of a free people ? It is the wealth of the
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Gales, Joseph, 1761-1841. Register of Debates in Congress, Comprising the Leading Debates and Incidents of the Second Session of the Eighteenth Congress, book, 1825; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc30752/m1/71/: accessed April 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.