SPEECHES OF JOHN C. CALHOUN.

I.

DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, DECEMBER 19, 1811, IN E

DEBATE ON THE SECOND RESOLUTION REPORTED BY THE COMMITTEE OF F EIGN RELATIONS.

MR. SPEAKER-I understood the opinion of the Committee of Foreign Re tions differently from what the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Randolph) h stated to be his impression. I certainly understood that the committee reco mended the measures now before the house as a preparation for war; a such. in fact, was its express resolve, agreed to, I believe, by every memb except that gentleman. I do not attribute any wilful misstatement to him, t consider it the effect of inadvertency or mistake. Indeed, the report could ma nothing but war or empty menace. I hope no member is in favour of the ter. A bullying, menacing system has everything to condemn and nothingo recommend it-in expense it almost rivals war. It excites contempt abrd and destroys confidence at home. Menaces are serious things, which ougho be resorted to with as much caution and seriousness as war itself; and shod, if not successful, be invariably followed by war. It was not the gentlenn from Tennessee (Mr. Grundy) that made this a war question. The resce contemplates an additional regular force; a measure confessedly improper ut as a preparation for war, but undoubtedly necessary in that event. Sir, Im not insensible to the weighty importance of this question, for the first time abmitted to this house, to compel a redress of our long list of complaints agast one of the belligerants. According to my mode of thinking, the more ser us the question, my conviction to support it must be the stronger and more unilterable. War, in our country, ought never to be resorted to but when i is clearly justifiable and necessary; so much so as not to require the aid of lgic to convince our understanding, nor the ardour of eloquence to inflame our jassions. 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 succeeding year exceeded in enormity the preceding. The question, even in the opinion and admission of our opponents, is reduced to this sin

B

gle oint: Which shall we do, abandon or defend our own commercial and maritim rights, and the personal liberties of our citizens employed in exercising ther? These rights are vitally attacked, and war is the only means of redres. The gentleman from Virginia has suggested none, unless we consider the hole of his speech as recommending patient and resigned submission as the est remedy. It is for the house to decide which of the alternatives ought to embraced. I hope the decision is made already, by a higher authority tha the voice of any man. It is not in the power of speech to infuse the sense of dependence and honour. To resist wrong is the instinct of nature; a gener nature, that disdains tame submission.

ran

is part of the subject is so imposing as to enforce silence even on the gentlein from Virginia. He dared not to deny his country's wrongs, or vindicatthe conduct of her enemy. But one part only of his argument had any, thenost remote relation to this point. He would not say that we had not a goo cause for war, but insisted that it was our duty to define that cause. If he eans that this house ought, at this stage of its proceedings, or any other, to ecify any particular violation of our rights to the exclusion of all others, he escribes a course which neither good sense nor the usage of nations warWhen we contend, let us contend for all our rights-the doubtful and theertain, the unimportant and essential. It is as easy to contend, or even moiso, for the whole as for a part. At the termination of the contest, secure all at our wisdom, and valour, and the fortune of war will permit. This is the ctate of common sense, and such, also, is the usage of nations. The single stance alluded to, the endeavour of Mr. Fox to compel Mr. Pitt to define theject of the war against France, will not support the gentleman from Virginiin his position. That was an extraordinary war for an extraordinary purposeand was not governed by the usual rules. It was not for conquest or for redns of injury, but to impose a government on France which she refused to recee-an object so detestable that an avowal dare not be made.

Iight here rest the question. The affirmative of the proposition is establishe. I cannot but advert, however, to the complaint of the gentleman from Virgia when he was first up on this question. He said he found himself reduce 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 hardshipin his case. It is not every affirmative that ought to be proved. Were I to afirm that the house is now in session, would it be reasonable to ask for proo? He who would deny its truth, on him would be the proof of so extraordinary a negative. How, then, could the gentleman, after his admissions, 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 dependant to defend its rights by arms. Let him, then, show the reasons why we ought not so to defend ourselves. On him, then, is the burden of proof. This he has attempted. He has endeavoured 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 evils always incident 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 endeavour to remedy so serious an evil? Let him not say "I have acted in a minority." It is no less the duty of the minority than a majority to endeavour to defend the country. For that purpose principally we are sent here, and not for that of opposition.

We are next told of the expenses of the war, and that the people will not pay taxes. Why not? Is it a want of means? What, with 1,000,000 tons of shipping; a commerce of $100,000,000 annually; manufactures yielding a yearly product of $150,000,000, and agriculture thrice that amount; shall we, with such great resources, be told that the country wants ability to raise and support 10,000 or 15,000 additional regulars? No: it has the ability, that is admitted; but will it not have the disposition? Is not our course just and necessary? Shall we, then, utter this libel on the people? Where will proof be found of a fact so disgraceful? It is said, in the history of the country twelve or fifteen years ago. The case is not parallel. The ability of the country is greatly increased since. The whiskey tax was unpopular. But, as well as my memory serves me, the objection was not so much to the tax or its amount as the mode of collecting it. The people were startled by the host of officers, and their love of liberty shocked with the multiplicity of regulations.. We, in the spirit of imitation, copied from the most oppressive part of the European laws on the subject of taxes, and imposed on a young and virtuous people the severe provisions made necessary by corruption and the long practice of evasion. If taxes should become necessary, I do not hesitate to say the people will pay cheerfully. It is for their government and their cause, and it would be their interest and duty to pay. But it may be, and I believe was said, that the people will not pay taxes, because the rights violated are not worth defending, or that the defence will cost more than the gain. Sir, I here enter my solemn protest against this low and "calculating avarice" entering this hall of legislation. It is only fit for shops and counting-houses, and ought not to disgrace the seat of power by its squalid aspect. Whenever it touches sovereign power, the nation is ruined. It is too short-sighted to defend itself. It is a compromising spirit, always ready to yield a part to save the residue. It is too timid to have in itself the laws of self-preservation. Sovereign power is never safe but under the shield of honour. There is, sir, one principle necessary to make us a great people-to produce, not the form, but real spirit of union, and that is to protect every citizen in the lawful pursuit of his business. He will then feel that he is backed by the government-that its arm is his arm. He then will rejoice in its increased strength and prosperity. Protection and patriotism are reciprocal. This is the way which has led nations to greatness. Sir, I am not versed in this calculating policy, and will not, therefore, pretend to estimate in dollars and cents the value of national independence. I cannot measure in shillings and pence the misery, the stripes, and the slavery of our impressed seamen ; nor even the value of our shipping, commercial and agricultural losses, under the orders in council and the British system of blockade. In thus expressing myself, I do not intend to condemn any prudent estimate of the means of a country before it enters on a war. That is wisdom, the other folly. The gentleman from Virginia has not failed to touch on the calamity of war, that fruitful source of declamation, by which humanity is made the advocate of submission. If he desires to repress the gallant ardour of our countrymen by such topics, let me inform him that true courage regards only the cause; that it is just and necessary, and that it contemns the sufferings and dangers of war. If he really wishes well to the cause of humanity, let his eloquence be addressed to the British ministry, and not the American Congress. Tell them that, if they persist in such daring insult and outrages to a neutral nation, however inclined to peace, it will be bound by honour and safety to resist; that their pa

tience and endurance, however great, will be exhausted; that the calamity of war will ensue, and that they, and not we, in the opinion of the world, will be answerable for all its devastation and misery. Let a regard to the interest of humanity stay the hand of injustice, and my life on it, the gentleman will not find it difficult to dissuade his countrymen from rushing into the bloody scenes of war.

We are next told of the danger of war. We are ready to acknowledge its hazard and misfortune, but I cannot think that we have any extraordinary danger to apprehend, at least none to warrant an acquiescence in the injuries we have received. On the contrary, I believe no war would be less dangerous to internal peace or the safety of the country. But we are told of the black population of the Southern States. As far as the gentleman from Virginia speaks of his own personal knowledge, I shall not question the correctness of his statement. I only regret that such is the state of apprehension in his part of the country. Of the southern section, I too have some personal knowledge, and can say that in South Carolina no such fears, in any part, are felt. But, sir, admit the gentleman's statement: will a war with Great Britain increase the danger? Will the country be less able to suppress insurrections? Had we anything to fear from that quarter-which I do not believe-in my opinion, the period of the greatest safety is during a war, unless, indeed, the enemy should make a lodgment in the country. It is in war that the country would be most on its guard, our militia the best prepared, and the standing army the greatest. Even in our Revolution, no attempts were made at insurrection by that portion of our population; and, however the gentleman may alarm himself with the disorganizing effects of French principles, I cannot think our ignorant blacks have felt much of their baneful influence. I dare say more than one half of them never heard of the French Revolution.

But as great as he regards the danger from our slaves, the gentleman's fears end not there the standing army is not less terrible to him. Sir, I think a regular force, raised for a period of actual hostilities, cannot properly be called a standing army. There is a just distinction between such a force and one raised as a permanent peace establishment. Whatever would be the composition of the latter, I hope the former will consist of some of the best materials of the country. The ardent patriotism of our young men, and the liberal bounty in land proposed to be given, will impel them to join their country's standard, and to fight her battles. They will not forget the citizen in the soldier, and, in obeying their officers, learn to contemn their government and Constitution. In our officers and soldiers we will find patriotism no less pure and ardent than in the private citizen; but if they should be as depraved as has been represented, what have we to fear from 25,000 or 30,000 regulars? Where will be the boasted militia of the gentleman? Can 1,000,000 of militia be overpowered by 30,000 regulars? If so, how can we rely on them against a foe invading our country? Sir, I have no such contemptuous idea of our militia: their untaught bravery is sufficient to crush all foreign and internal attempts on their country's liberties.

But we have not yet come to the end of the chapter of dangers. The gentleman's imagination, so fruitful on this subject, conceives that our Constitution is not calculated for war, and that it cannot stand its rude shock. Can that be so? If so, we must then depend upon the commiseration or contempt of other nations for our existence. The Constitution, then, it seems, has failed in an essential object: "to provide for the common defence." No, says the gentleman, it is competent to a defensive, but not an offensive war. It is not necessary for me to expose the fallacy of this argument. Why make the distinction in this case? Will he pretend to say that this is an offensive war-a war of conquest? Yes, the gentleman has ventured to make this assertion, and for reasons no less extraordinary than the assertion itself. He says, our rights are