The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, Thirteenth Congress, First and Second Sessions Page: 1,459
1441-2858 p.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:
1459
HISTORY OF CONGRESS.
146@:
H. of R.
The Loan Bill.
February, 1814.
tions of the Emperor of France, and the lan-
guage of all his State papers, showing the char-
acter of his continental system, and proving the
estimate placed by him on our compliance.
Those decrees are declared to be the fundamental
law of his Empire; the flag is to be considered
an extension of territory, and the nation which
suffers it to be violated, forfeits its neutrality.
In March, 1811, (previous to a knowledge of our
unfortunate non-intercourse law of that month,)
the Emperor, in an address to his Council of
Commerce, thus expresses himself: "The fate of
' American commerce will soon be decided. I
' will favor it if the United States conform them-
1 selves to these decrees. In a contrary case their
' vessels will be driven from my Empire. The
' commercial relations with England must cease."
Thus, sir, we are not left to conjecture to know
what was the judgment of Bonaparte on those
who refused to give full effect to his continental
system. In what light he considered our restrict-
ive system, and particularly the law of March,
1811, may be collected from the following ex-
tract from the Mercure de France, a Parisian
journal of high authority, published in April,
1811 ; after speaking of the measures adopted
against England by the European allies of
France—"the Americans (says this journal) on
' their part, are establishing in the New World,
' another continental system, which draws still
1 closer the blockade to which England has sub-
' jected herself by menacing France," &c. The
French gazettes all hold a similar language, and
take it for granted that we have become mem-
bers of the Imperial League. These opinions
emanate from the Emperor himself.
If further evidence of the demands of Bona-
parte on this country to conform to his system,
were neccssary to prove that nothing short of
unconditional compliance, or war with England,
would appease him, I would refer to the corres-
pondence of Mr. Barlow, our late Minister to
France. When this gentleman submitted his
project for negotiation, and placed, as he says,
our relations in a point of view both novel and
impressive, the Emperor did not know how he
could reconcile the provisions to the principles of
his great continental system. But, sir, in the
absence of all other testimony on this subject, I
have a document before me, the authenticity and
official character of which is now no longer to be
denied or questioned, which proves the most un-
equivocal and formal demand on our Govern-
ment to accede to the maritime confederation.
I allude to the celebrated letter of General Tur-
reau, late Minister of France, to Robert Smith,
Esq., late Secretary of State, dated June 14,
1809. Among the least of the abominations con-
tained in this letter is the following paragraph :
" I have thought it was not incompatible with my
duty to submit to the wisdom of your Government,
the new chances, which the changes brought about in
Europe offer to the commercial interests of the United
States, and the inconveniences which may result from
their refusal to accede formally to the principles of the
maritime confederation."
That we have been formally and officially re-
quired to conform to the views and policy of
France, I think I have fully established ; how
far we have yielded to'those and that policy by
our restrictive systems, and how far embraced
them by our war, I leave to history to decide,
and the impartial world to judge.
Mr. Chairman : It is time we should pause; it
is time we should seriously reflect, whether any,
and what essential, practical, attainable good is
to result from the prosecution of this war; the
great object for which it was declared—the Orders
in Council—has now ceased to exist. The ques-
tion of impressment alone remains; this ques-
tion I do believe can be so arranged as to exempt
our native seamen from abuse, and to give to
Great Britain reasonable security against the em-
ployment of her seamen on board our public and
private vessels. The right asserted by Great
Britain to impress her subjects from on board
our merchant vessels may remain undecided.
The abuses of which we complain have arisen
in a great degree from the troubled state of the
European world, and the peculiar inducements
which our merchant service held out for the em-
ployment of foreign seamen, and not solely from
the assertion of an abstract principle—a princi-
ple which, I may be permitted to say, is recog-
nised and practised on by France and every mar-
itime nation of Europe. But, sir, if the right is
denied ; if the claim, set up by Great Britain, to
impress her own subjects, is totally unfounded,
have we the power of compelling her to abandon
it 1 Is there a gentleman in this House; is there
an intelligent man in the nation, who does, or can
believe, that the abandonment of this right is to
be extorted by the war in which we are engaged?
I believe not, sir.
It is not a little remarkable that we should now
be at war for an object which did not produce
the declaration of war; for a principle which
was never even attempted to be adjusted by the
present Administration, previous to the com-
mencement of hostilities, and which was totally
overlooked or disregarded in the arrangement
made with Mr. Erskine in 1809, and is not named
in any of the conditions to our restrictive laws
by which commerce and intercourse were to be
restored with Great Britain. This perhaps ex-
hibits a phenomenon in the history of wars and
politics. Believing the question of impressment
susceptible of practical arrangement, I have al-
ways deemed it unfortunate that the instructions
given to Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney, in the at-
tempted negotiation, during the Administration
of Mr. Jefferson, required an absolute abandon-
ment of the right, instead of leaving a discretion
with the Commissioners, or devising some equiv-
alent by which the abstract right might have re-
mained untouched, and reasonable security af-
forded against the complaints of both parties.
To show that our Government, in their negotia-
tions on the subject of impressment, uniformly
stickled for the abandonment of the right, instead
of attempting to regulate its exercise, I will re-
fer to the instructions of Mr. Monroe, in 1804, and
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 and Seaton. The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, Thirteenth Congress, First and Second Sessions, book, 1854; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc30354/m1/12/: accessed July 16, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.