The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, Thirteenth Congress, First and Second Sessions Page: 1,603
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:
1603
HISTORY OF CONGRESS.
1604
H. op R.
The Loan Bill.
February, 1814.
those who gave them birth. It is said that the
impressment of our seamen was not of itself suf-
ficient cause of war. I do not pretend to assert
that war would have been declared had this been
the only cause, but that it would have justified
the declaration cannot be questioned. A practice
which produces injuries of known magnitude,
which deeply afflicts the feelings and the honor
of the nation, is certainly justifiable cause of war.
This war may have been impolitic and prema-
ture in its declaration, from the want of prepara-
tion or any other cause, but no one can shelter
his opposition to any measure necessary for its
prosecution, under the plea of its injustice, with-
out forfeiting his claims to public respect.
The second ground of excuse or justification
used is, that it was unjust to continue the war
after the repeal of the Orders in Council, alleged
to have been the only cause of war. This allega-
tion is denied. These orders were not the only
cause of war. Without attempting to show the
policy and necessity of settling all the points of
dispute, I will examine how far Great Britain
exhibited a disposition to do us justice in her act
of repeal. An indifferent spectator of such a con-
test between two nations, when told that the in-
juring party had given the strongest proof of her
good faith and love of peace, would conclude
that the injustice complained of had ceased ; that
ample security was provided against a repetition
of the injury, and remuneration for that already
inflicted was offered or made. How is the fact?
The very act of repeal asserts the justice of the
system; insists upon the right of again resorting
to it if necessary; afiects to confer a favor by its
suspension of abandonment. Where was the se-
curity against future and similar aggressions?
Where was the remuneration for the millions of
American property poured into the royal coffers
as droits of the Admiralty? Will it be pretended
that this remuneration is not to be expectcd?
Will gentlemen who rave about the millions im-
perially plundered from us by France, quietly
surrender to Great Britain the royal portions
which have been most iniquitously condemned
in her Courts of Admiralty? They ask at the
hands of the Administration an account of the
property seized under the decree of Berlin, Mi-
lan, and Rambouillet. The Administration de-
mand restoration from France, and this demand
would have been made, although her banners had
floated over prostrate Russia, although her impe-
rial eagles had been planted on the walls of St.
Petersburg. We look for the same justice from
both these nations. Perhaps the Minister, Admi-
ral Warren, was vested with full powers to sup-
ply these deficiencies;—he who came to heal our
divisions, to afford our Government a glorious
opportunity of stopping the effusion of human
blood. He came to inform us that the Orders in
Council were repealed; to propose an armistice.
If accepted, was he to arrange the subjects of dis-
pute between the two nations? Nulhing like it.
To arrange with the Secretary of State "as to
the revocation of the laws which interdict the
Commerce and ships of war of Great Britain from
the waters and harbors of the United States."
This, and this only, was his errand. Ample
atonement had already been made by the repeal
for all our injuries of every description and char-
acter. Nothing further was or could be expected,
and this is the glorious opportunity lost by the
Administration ; this is what is called by the
Legislature of Massachusetts, in their celebrated
remonstrance, the signal proof of the good faith
and disposition to peace of the British nation.
But this repeal was not even a compliance with
the promise of her Ministry. They promised an
absolute revocation of their Orders in Council
whenever the decrees were, by an authentic act
of the French Government, publicly promul-
gated, repealed. When this authentic act on
the part of the French Government, which had
been shamefully withheld or fraudulently ante-
dated, was promulgated, they comply with their
promise by a repeal in June, which was to take
effect in the August succeeding. What was the
reason of this procrastination to do justice; of
this violation of their engagement? The events
which have since occurred in the North of Eu-
rope point with unerring certainty to the cause.
France and Russia were disputing about the con-
tinuance of the continental system. The De-
liverer had not yet determined to deliver him-
self from the iron grasp of the Imperial Corsi-
can; he had not yet resolved " to set his crown
upon a cast and stand the hazard of the die;"
before August these facts were to be ascer-
tained. Is it a strained or unfair conclusion to
draw from these premises that these circum-
stances were hoped for? If they occurred, the
system could be continued; if they did not hap-
pen, it was to be suffered to here expire.
The Administration of this country, which has
been represented as plunging the nation unneces-
sarily into this war; which is represented as seek-
ing for unauthorized excuses for continuing it,
overlooked all these evidences of injustice, and
considered the overture of Admiral Warren as
made in the spirit of peace, and by a Minister
having full power to arrange all the matters in
controversy. They did not demand, as has been
represented here, the abandonment of the right
of impressment as a preliminary to negotiation;
they demanded the suspension of the practice
during the proposed cessation of hostilities. This
was, to be sure, a most outrageous and unjusti-
fiable demand. The war which prevented this
practice was to cease, and this practice was to be
resumed and exercised, because the Orders in
Council were to cease in August, if it pleased
the Prince Regent. Yet this demand is consid-
ered as an unequivocal proof of the bad faith of
our rulers, and their disposition to feast on the
bloody banquet, by those who see in the conduct
of Great Britain signal proofs of her good faith
and disposition to peace. An honorable gentle-
man from Connecticut, (Mr. Pitkin.) addressing
you on this subject, has said that the high claims
of the Government are now abandoned; now the
matter is to be arranged. By an arrangement,
the gentleman understands the rights contended
ar
rel
Gi
on
doi
of
tin
CO
jec
dei
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/m1/84/: accessed July 16, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.