Abridgement of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856 (4 of 16 vol.). United States. Congress

at once, you must make your election. Yet, in making such election, you must necessarily coincide with the wishes and act according to the commands of one of the bullies. Yet who, before this committee, ever thought an election of one of two inevitable courses, made under such circumstances, "abject and degrading submission" to the will of either of the assailants? The second assertion, that "repeal in whole or in part of the embargo must necessarily be war or submission," the committee proceed to maintain by several subsidiary assertions. First – "a general repeal without arming would be submission to both nations." So far from this being true, the reverse is the fact; it would be submission to neither. Great Britain does not say, "you shall trade with me." France does not say, "you shall trade with me." If this was the language of their edicts, there might be some color for the assertion of the committee, that if we trade with either we submit. The edicts of each declare you shall not trade with my adversary. Our servile knee-crooking embargo says, "you shall, therefore, not trade." Can any submission be more palpable, more "abject, more disgraceful?" A general repeal without arming, would be only an exercise of our natural rights, under the protection of our mercantile ingenuity, and not under that of physical power. Whether our merchants shall arm or not, is a question of political expediency and of relative force. It may be very true that we can fight our way to neither country, and yet it may be also very true, that we may carry on a very important commerce with both. The strength of the national arm may not be equal to contend with either, and yet the wit of our merchants may be over-match for the edicts of all. The question of arming or not arming, has reference only to the mode in which we shall best enjoy our rights, and not at all to the quality of the act of trading during these edicts. To exercise commerce is our absolute right. If we arm, we may possibly extend the field beyond that which mere ingenuity would open to us. Whether the extension thus acquired be worthy of the risk and expense, is a fair question. But, decide it either way, how is trading as far as we have ability, made less abject than not trading at all?

      I come to the second subsidiary assertion. "A general repeal and arming of merchant vessels, would be war with both, and war of the worst kind, suffering the enemies to plunder us, without retaliation upon them."

      I have before exposed the absurdity of a war with two belligerents, each hostile to the other. It cannot be true, therefore, that "a general repeal and arming our merchant vessels," would be such a war. Neither if war resulted, would it be "war of the worst kind." In my humble apprehension, a war, in which our enemies are permitted to plunder us, and our merchants not permitted to defend their property, is somewhat worse than a war like this; in which, with arms in their hands, our brave seamen might sometimes prove too strong for their piratical assailants. By the whole amount of property which we might be able to preserve by these means, would such a war be better than that in which we are now engaged. For the committee assure us, that the aggressions to which we are subject, "are to all intents and purposes a maritime war, waged with both nations against the United States."

      The last assertion of the committee, in this most masterly page is, that "a partial repeal must from the situation of Europe, necessarily be actual submission to one of the aggressors, and war with the other." In the name of common sense, how can this be true? The trade to Sweden, to Spain, to China, is not now affected by the orders or decrees of either belligerent. How is it submission, then, to these orders for us to trade to Gottenburg, when neither France nor Britain command, nor prohibit it? Of what consequence is it to us what way the Gottenburg merchant disposes of our products, after he has paid us our price? I am not about to deny that a trade to Gottenburg would defeat the purpose of coercing Great Britain, through the want of our supplies, but I reason on the report upon its avowed principles. If gentlemen adhere to their system, as a means of coercion, let the Administration avow it as such, and support the system, by arguments, such as their friends use every day on this floor. Let them avow, as those friends do, that this is our mode of hostility against Great Britain. That it is better than "ball and gunpowder." Let them show that the means are adequate to the end; let them exhibit to us, beyond the term of all this suffering, a happy salvation, and a glorious victory, and the people may then submit to it, even without murmur. But while the Administration support their system only as a municipal regulation, as a means of safety and preservation, those who canvass their principle are not called upon to contest with them on ground, which not only they do not take, but which, officially, they disavow. As partial repeal would not be submission to either, so, also, it would not be war with either. A trade to Sweden would not be war with Great Britain; that nation is her ally, and she permits it. Nor with France, though Sweden is her enemy, she does not prohibit it. Ah! but say the committee, "a measure which would supply exclusively one of the belligerents, would be war with the other." This is the State secret; this is the master-key to the whole policy. You must not only do what the letter of these orders prohibits, but you must not sin against the spirit of them. The great purpose is, to prevent your product from getting to our enemy, and to effect this you must not only so act as to obey the terms of the decrees, but keeping the great purpose of them always in sight, you must extend their construction to cases which they cannot, by any rule of reason, be made to include.

      Sir, I have done with this report. I would not have submitted to the task of canvassing it, if gentlemen had not thrown the gauntlet with the air of sturdy defiance. I willingly leave to this House and the nation to decide whether the position I took in the commencement of my argument is not maintained; that there is not one of the principal positions contained in the 12th page, the heart of this report, which is true, in the sense and to the extent assumed by the committee.

      It was under these general impressions that I used the word "loathsome," which has so often been repeated. Sir, it may not have been a well chosen word. It was that which happened to come to hand first. I meant to express my disgust at what appeared to me a mass of bold assumptions, and of illy-cemented sophisms.

      I said, also, that "the spirit which it breathed was disgraceful" Sir, I meant no reflection upon the committee. Honest men and wise men may mistake the character of the spirit which they recommend, or by which they are actuated. When called upon to reason concerning that which, by adoption, is to become identified with the national character, I am bound to speak of it as it appears to my vision. I may be mistaken. Yet, I ask the question: is not the spirit which it breathes disgraceful? Is it not disgraceful to abandon the exercise of all our commercial rights, because our rivals interfere with a part; not only to refrain from exercising that trade which they prohibit, but for fear of giving offence, to decline that which they permit? Is it not disgraceful, after inflammatory recapitulation of insults, and plunderings, and burnings, and confiscations, and murders, and actual war made upon us, to talk of nothing but alternatives, of general declarations, of still longer suspension of our rights, and retreating farther out of "harm's way?" If this course be adopted by my country, I hope I am in error concerning its real character. But to my sense, this whole report is nothing else than a recommendation to us of the abandonment of our essential rights and apologies for doing it.

      Before I sit down, I feel myself compelled to notice some observations which have been made in different quarters of this House on the remarks which, at an early stage of this debate, I had the honor of submitting to its consideration. My honorable colleague (Mr. Bacon) was pleased to represent me as appealing to the people over the heads of the whole Government, against the authority of a law which had not only the sanction of all the legislative branches of the Government, but also of the Judiciary. Sir, I made no such appeal. I did not so much as threaten it. I admitted, expressly, the binding authority of the law. But I claim a right, which I ever will claim, and ever will exercise, to urge, on this floor, my opinion of the unconstitutionality of a law, and my reasons for that opinion, as a valid ground for its repeal. Sir, I will not only do this, I will do more. If a law be, in my apprehension, dangerous in its principles, ruinous in its consequences, above all if it be unconstitutional, I will not fail in every fair and honorable way to awaken the people to a sense of their peril; and to quicken them, by the exercise of their constitutional privileges, to vindicate themselves and their posterity from ruin.

      My honorable colleague (Mr. Bacon) was also pleased to refer to me, "as a man of divisions and distinctions, waging war with adverbs, and dealing in figures." Sir, I am sorry that my honorable colleague should stoop "from his pride of place," at such humble game as my poor style presents to him. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I cannot but confess that, "deeming high" of the station which I hold; standing, as it were, in