SPEECH

On the New Army Bill, delivered in the House of Representatives, January 14th, 1813.

[NOTE.-Dec. 14th, 1812. The Committee on Military Affairs reported to the House, a Bill to raise twenty additional regiments of infantry to serve for one year, unless sooner discharged. This Bill, both in Committee of the Whole and in the House, had a very full discussion, which, as usual, turned more on questions connected with the policy and expediency of the war, than on its own intrinsic merits. Mr. Calhoun delivered this speech near the close of the debate. The Bill passed by a vote of ayes, 77; nays, 42.]

In

MR. SPEAKER-I can offer nothing more acceptable, I presume, to the House, than a promise not to discuss the Orders in Council, French decrees, blockades, or embargoes. I am induced to avoid these topics for several reasons. the first place, they are too stale to furnish any interest to this House or the country. Gentlemen who have attempted it, with whatever abilities, have failed to command attention; and it would argue very little sagacity on my part, not to be admonished by their want of success. Indeed, whatever interest may have been at one time attached to these subjects is now lost. They have passed away; and will not soon, I hope, return into the circle of politics. Yes, Sir, reviled as have been our country's efforts to curb belligerent injustice-weak and contemptible as she has been represented to be in the scale of nations, she has triumphed in breaking down the most dangerous monopoly ever attempted by one nation against the commerce of another. I will not stop to inquire whether their triumph is attributable to the Non-Importation Act, or to the menace of war, or, (what is more probable,) to the last, operating on the pressure pro

duced by the former,-the fact is certain that the Orders in Council of 1807 and 1809,-which our opponents have often said, that England would never yield, as they made a part of her commercial system, are now no more. The same firmness, if persevered in, which has carried us thus far with success, will, as our cause is just, end in final victory. A further reason why I shall not follow our opponents into the region of documents and records, is, that I am afraid of a decoy; as I am induced to believe, from appearances, that their object is to draw our attention from the merits of the question. Gentlemen have literally buried their arguments under a huge pile of quotations; and wandered so far into this realm of paper, that neither the vision of this House has been, nor that of the country will be, able to follow them. There the best and worst reasons share an equal fate. The truth of the one, and the error of the other, are covered in like obscurity.

Before I proceed further, I will make a few observations in reply to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Randolph), who spoke yesterday. He complained of the desertion of his former associates from the minority principles of '98. These principles, he said, consisted in an opposition to the general government, in relation to the States,-and to political rights, in relation to individuals.

I was, at one moment, almost induced to suspect the gentleman of a desertion of his own principles; for scarcely had he finished this part of his subject, before he passed a highly-wrought eulogy on the Father of his Country—on that man whose whole life indicated the strongest leaning on the side of the government of his country. I beg the gentleman to reflect whether his definition of minority principles suits the character of Washington's administration? and if not, with what propriety both can be praised almost in the same breath. Whether, indeed, the principles of '98 are such as the gentleman has represented them to be, I will not inquire,

because not necessary to my argument. But if they are, in truth, those of the gentleman and his present associates, I should be happy to know with what countenance they can request the people of this country to put the government into their hands. Trust the government to those who are hostile to it! who prefer their own interest and rights, to its interest and rights! If our opponents are, in reality, in favor of such principles, patriotism ought to persuade them to add one other, and that is, ever to remain in a minority. There they may, perhaps, be of some use; at least, they will not be dangerous; but put them in power, and let them act up to what they profess, and destruction would be certain. If the gentleman from Virginia is anxious to know the real cause of the separation of his former associates from him, he must look for it in his present political creed, and that of those with whom he is now united. He will there find an article which had no place in his, in '98; and which, then, as well as now, was reprobated by those who constitute the present majority. This article is only an enlargement of the minority principles, as defined by the gentleman; -it is, opposition to our country in relation to England. The proof of this article is of the same kind, and no less clear than the others. For, what encroachment of England on our neutral rights, from the interruption of our carrying trade, down to the moment that war was declared-which one of the innumerable insults and injuries to which we have been subjected, has the opposition either not palliated or justified? and what effort of our country to resist, which has not been reprobated and opposed?

I will not multiply proofs on a course of conduct, the bad effect of which was too sensibly felt to be easily forgotten, and the continuation of which was but too apparent in the present discussion. For what is the object of the opposition in this debate? To defeat the passage of this bill? It has been scarcely mentioned; and contains no

thing to raise that storm which has been excited against it. The bill proposes to raise twenty thousand men only, and that for one year; and surely there is nothing in that calculated to lay such strong hold on the jealousies or fears of the community. What, then, is the object of the opposition? Gentlemen certainly do not act without an intention; and wide as has been the range of debate, it cannot be so lawless as to be without an object. It is not, I repeat, to defeat the passage of this bill; no, but what is much more to be dreaded, to thwart that which the bill proposes to advancethe final success of the war; and, to effect this purpose, I must do the opposition the credit to say, they have resorted to the most effectual means. In a free government,-in a government of laws,-two things are necessary for the effectual prosecution of any great measure: the law, by which the executive officer is charged with the execution, and vested with suitable powers; and the co-operating zeal and union of the people, who are always indispensable agents. Opposition, to be successful, must direct its efforts against the passage of the law; or, what is more common, and generally more effectual, to destroy the union and the zeal of the people. Either, if successful, is effectual. The former would, in most cases, be seen and reprobated; the latter, much the more dangerous, has, to the great misfortune of republics, presented, at all times, a ready means of defeating the most salutary measures. To this point the whole arguments of opposition have converged. This gives a meaning to every reason and assertion which has been advanced, however wild and inconsistent. No topic has been left untouched; no passion unessayed. The war has been represented as unjust in its origin, disastrous in its progress, and desperate in its further prosecution. As if to prevent the possibility of doubt, a determination has been boldly asserted not to support it.

Such is the opposition to the war, which was admitted,

on all sides, to be just; and which, in a manner, received the votes even of those who now appear to be willing to ruin the country in order to defeat its success. For, let it be ever remembered, that the bill to raise twenty-five thousand men passed this House (January, 1812) almost unanimously, though it was distinctly announced for what object it was intended. How will gentlemen relieve themselves from this dilemma? Was it their object to embarrass the administration? Will they dare to make a confession, which would so strongly confirm the motive that has been assigned to them ? A gentleman from New-York (Mr. Emmot) felt the awkwardness of the situation; and, in his endeavor to explain, has made an admission which ought ever to exclude him and his friends from power. He justified his vote on the ground that he was in favor of the force as a peace establishment. A peace establishment of thirty-five thousand men! [Mr. E. explained that he did not mean as a peace establishment; but that the posture of affairs, at that time, demanded it.] At any rate (continued Mr. C.), I hope to hear nothing more about the enormous expense of the war; since the principal expense ought to have been incurred, in the gentleman's opinion, even had it not been resorted to. Well might the opposition admit the justice of the war. For years the moderation of the government (I might almost say), its excessive love of peace, strove to avoid the contest. We bore all that an independent nation could bear; not, indeed, with patience, but in the hopes of returning justice on the part of our enemy.

I cannot omit noticing the attempt made by the gentleman from New-York, to palliate the conduct of England in relation to one of the causes of the war. I allude to the blockade of 1806. The gentleman contended that it was a relaxation of the law of nations in our favor; and, of consequence, must be considered by us in the light of a benefit. It surely cannot be necessary to trace the gentleman through