1810 1782 48

CHAPTER III.

Enters the House of Representatives-Appointed on the Committee of Foreign Affairs-Speech on the War-His Character-Standing-→ Support of Madison's Administration and the War Measures-The Restrictive System-Remarks of Mr. Calhoun-Course in regard to the Embargo-Speech on the Loan Bill.

HOWEVER true it may be that the Jay treaty was the best that could have been obtained from the British ministry at the time it was concluded, it is equally certain that it only relieved the administrations of Washington and Adams from the difficulties and embarrassments in our foreign relations against which Mr. Jefferson was scarcely able to maintain himself, and which at one time threatened to overthrow the administration of his successor. All the troublesome questions which had been so long postponed or evaded were inherited by Madison as a legacy, and further delay in their settlement was no longer possible. Happiness and prosperity smiled upon the home industry of the country; peace and contentment dwelt in all her borders; but the dark shadow thrown from the other side of the Atlantic fell upon and clouded everything that was so bright and fair.

The first session of the twelfth Congress commenced on the 4th day of November, 1811,-the two Houses

having been called together, by executive proclamation, in advance of the regular day fixed upon by law for the commencement of the session, on account of the threatening aspect of affairs. Mr. Calhoun took his seat in the House of Representatives at the opening of the session. He was still a young man, being only in his thirtieth year, but he was not entirely unknown even among the many aistinguished members of the House. His talents and the zeal and ability which he had often manifested in defending the administration, and advocating decisive measures of resistance in opposition to the grasping policy of Great Britain, induced his appointment by the then Speaker, Henry Clay, to the second place on the Committee of Foreign Affairs. The chairman of the committee was Peter B. Porter, of New York.

Mr. Calhoun's début as a speaker was made on the 19th of December, 1811, during the debate on the resolutions reported from the committee of which he was a member, in the month of November previous, authorizing immediate and active preparations for war. Able speeches in behalf of the resolutions had already been delivered by Mr. Porter and Mr. Grundy, and it devolved on Mr. Calhoun to reply to the tirade of abuse and invective which the eloquent and versatile John Randolph had poured out on the policy shadowed forth in the resolutions. Mr. Calhoun had before submitted a few remarks on the Apportionment Bill, but had not attempted anything like a set speech. A report of his speech on the resolutions of the committee has been preserved, and it will amply testify how well he maintained the reputation which had preceded him, and ren

dered justice to himself and to the people whom he represented.

SPEECH ON THE WAR RESOLUTIONS.

MR. SI'EAKER-I understood the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Relations differently from what the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Randolph) has stated to be his impression. I certainly understood that the committee recommended the measures now before the house as a preparation for war; and such, in fact, was its express resolve, agreed to, I believe, by every member except that gentleman. I do not attribute any wilful misstatement to him, but consider it the effect of inadvertency or mistake. Indeed, the report could mean nothing but war or empty menace. I hope no member is in favor of the latter. A bullying, menacing system has everything to condemn and nothing to recommend it-in expense it almost rivals war. It excites contempt abroad and destroys confidence at home. Menaces are serious things, which ought to be resorted to with as much caution and seriousness as war itself, and should, if not successful, be invariably followed by war. It was not the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Grundy) that made this a war question. The resolve contemplates an additional regular force; a measure confessedly improper but as a preparation for war, but undoubtedly necessary in that event. Sir, I am not insensible to the weighty importance of this question, for the first time submitted to this house, to compel a redress of our long list of complaints against one of the belligerents. According to my mode of thinking, the more serious the question, my convictions to support it must be the stronger and more unalterable. War, in our country, ought never to be resorted to but when it is clearly justifiable and necessary; so much so as not to require the aid of logic to convince our understanding, nor the ardor of eloquence to inflame our passions. There are many reasons why this country should never resort to it but for causes the most urgent and necessary. It is sufficient that, under a government like ours, none but such will justify it in the eyes of the people; and were I not satisfied that such is the present case, I certainly would be no advocate of the proposition now before the house.

Sir, I might prove the war, should it follow, to be justifiable, by the express admission of the gentleman from Virginia; and necessary, by facts undoubted and universally admitted, such as he did not attempt

to controvert. The extent, duration, and character of the injuries received; the failure of those peaceful means heretofore resorted to for the redress of our wrongs, are my proofs that it is necessary. Why should I mention the impressment of our seamen-depredation on every branch of our commerce, including the direct export trade, continued for years, and made under laws which professedly undertake to regulate our trade with other nations?-negotiation, resorted to again and again, till it became hopeless, and the restrictive system persisted in to avoid war, and in the vain expectation of returning justice? The evil still continued to grow, so that each successive year exceeded in enormity the preceding. The question, even in the opinion and admission of our opponents, is reduced to this single point: which shall we do, abandon or defend our own commercial and maritime rights, and the personal liberty of our citizens employed in exercising them? These rights are vitally attacked, and war is the only means of redress. The gentleman from Virginia has suggested none, unless we consider the whole of his speech as recommending patient and resigned submission as the best remedy. It is for the house to decide which of the alternatives ought to be embraced. I hope the decision is made already, by a higher authority than the voice of any man. It is not in the power of speech to infuse the sense of independence and honor. To resist wrong is the instinct of nature; a generous nature, that disdains tame submission.

This part of the subject is so imposing as to enforce silence even on the gentleman from Virginia. He dared not to deny his country's wrongs, or vindicate the conduct of her enemy. But one part only of his argument had any, the most remote relation to this point. He would not say that we had not a good cause for war, but insisted that it was our duty to define that cause. If he means that this house ought, at this stage of its proceedings, or any other, to specify any particular violation of our rights to the exclusion of all others, he prescribes a course which neither good sense nor the usage of nations warrants. When we contend, let us contend for all our rights—the doubtful and the certain, the unimportant and essential. It is as easy to contend, or even more so, for the whole as for a part. At the termination of the contest, secure all that our wisdom, and valor, and the fortune of war will permit. This is the dictate of common sense, and such, also, is the usage of nations. The single instance alluded to, the endeavor of Mr. Fox to compel Mr. Pitt to define the object of the war against France, will not support the gentleman from Virginia in his position. That was an ex

traordinary war for an extraordinary purpose, and was not governed by the usual rules. It was not for conquest or for redress of injury, but to impose a government on France which she refused to receive—an object so detestable that an avowal dare not be made.

I might here rest the question. The affirmative of the proposition is established. I cannot but advert, however, to the complaint of the gentleman from Virginia, when he was first up on this question. He said he found himself reduced to the necessity of supporting the negative side of the question before the affirmative was established. Let me tell that gentleman that there is no hardship in his case. It is not every affirmative that ought to be proved. Were I to affirm that the house is now in session, would it be reasonable to ask for proof? He who would deny its proof, on him would be the proof of so extraordinary a negative. How, then, could the gentleman, after his admission, and with the facts before him and the nation, complain? The causes are such as to warrant, or, rather, to make it indispensable in any nation not absolutely dependent to defend its rights by arms. Let him, then, show the reason why we ought not so to defend ourselves. On him, then, is the burden of proof. This he has attempted. He has endeavored to support his negative. Before I proceed to answer him particularly, let me call the attention of the house to one circumstance, that almost the whole of his arguments consisted of an enumeration of the evils always incidental to war, however just and necessary; and that, if they have any force, it is calculated to produce unqualified submission to every species of insult and injury. I do not feel myself bound to answer arguments of that description, and if I should allude to them, it will be only incidentally, and not for the purpose of serious refutation.

The first argument which I shall notice is the unprepared state of the country. Whatever weight this argument might have in a question of immediate war, it surely has little in that of preparation for it. If our country is unprepared, let us prepare as soon as possible. Let the gentleman submit his plan, and if a reasonable one, I doubt not it will be supported by the house. But, Sir, let us admit the fact with the whole force of the argument; I ask, whose is the fault? Who has been a member for many years past, and has seen the defenceless state of his country, even near home, under his own eyes, without a single endeavor to remedy so serious an evil? Let him not say, "I have acted in a minority." It is not less the duty of the minority than a majority