Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

of the Black sea, the coast of Africa and South America, all wheat countries, open to her commerce?

But the embargo saves our resources. It may justly be questioned, whether, in this point of view, the embargo is so effectual as, at first, men are led to imagine. It may be doubted if the seed-wheat for this harvest is not worth more than the whole crop. I say nothing of the embarrassments of our commerce, of the loss of our seamen, of the sunken value of real estate. But our dead, irredeemable loss by this embargo, during the present year, cannot be stated at less than ten per centum, on account of interest and profit on the whole export of our country-that is, on the one hundred and eight millions, ten million eight hundred thousand dollars.

Nor can our loss upon a million tons of unemployed shipping be stated at less than at twenty dollars the ton-twenty millions of dollars. Thirty millions of dollars is a serious outfit for any voyage of salvation; and the profit ought to be very unquestionable, before a wise man would be persuaded to renew or prolong it. Besides, is it true that the articles the embargo retains are, in the common acceptation of the term, resources? I suppose, that by this word, so ostentatiously used on all occasions, it is meant to convey the idea, that the produce thus retained in the country, will be a resource for use, or defence, in case of war, or any other misfortune happening to it. But is this true? Our exports are surplus products-what we raise beyond what we consume. cause we cannot use them, they are surplus. Of course, in this country they have little or no value in use, but only in exchange. Take away the power of exchange, and how can they be called resources? Every year produces sufficient for its own consumption, and a surplus. Suppose an embargo of ten years: will gentlemen seriously contend, that the accumulating surplus of fish, cotton, tobacco and flour would be a resource for any national exigencies? We cannot consume it, because the annual product is equal to our annual consumption. Our embargo forbids us to sell it.

Be

How, then, is it a resource? Are we stronger or richer for it? The reverse-we are weaker and poorer. Weaker by all the loss of motive to activity, by all the diminution of the industry of the country, which such a deprivation of the power to exchange, produces. And what can be poorer than he, who is obliged to keep what he cannot use, and to labor for that which profit

eth not?

It is in vain to say, that if the embargo was raised there would be no market. The merchants understand that subject better than you; and the eagerness with which preparations to load were carried on previous to the commencement of this session, speaks, in a language not to be mistaken, their opinion of the foreign markets. But it has been asked in debate," Will not Massachusetts,

the cradle of liberty, submit to such privations?" An embargo liberty was never cradled in Massachusetts. Our liberty was not so much a mountain, as a sea-nymph. She was free as air. She could swim, or she could run. The ocean was her cradle. Our fathers met her as she came, like the goddess of beauty, from the waves. They caught her as she was sporting on the beach. They courted her whilst she was spreading her nets upon the rocks. But an embargo liberty; a hand-cuffed liberty; a liberty in fetters; a liberty traversing between the four sides of a prison and beating her head against the walls, is none of our offspring. We abjure the monster. Its parentage is all inland.

The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Macon) exclaimed the other day, "Where is the spirit of '76?" Ay, sir, where is it? Would to Heaven, that at our invocation, it would condescend to alight on this floor. But let gentlemen remember, that the spirit of '76 was not a spirit of empty declaration, or of abstract propositions. It did not content itself with non-importation acts, or non-intercourse laws. It was a spirit of active preparation; of dignified energy. It studied both to know our rights and to devise the effectual means of maintaining them. In all the annals of '76, you will find no such degrading doctrine, as that maintained in this report. It never presented to the people of the United States the alternative of war or a suspension of our rights, and recommended the latter rather than to incur the risk of the former. What was the language of that period, in one of the addresses of congress to Great Britain? "You attempt to reduce us by the sword to base and abject submission. On the sword, therefore, we rely for protection." In that day there were no alternatives presented to dishearten; no abandonment of our rights, under the pretence of maintaining them; no gaining the battle by running away. In the whole history of that period there are no such terms as "embargo; dignified retirement; trying who can do each other the most harm." At that time we had a navy; that name so odious to the influences of the present day. Yes, sir, in 1776, though but in our infancy, we had a navy scouring our coasts, and defending our commerce, which was never for one moment wholly suspended. In 1776, we had an army also; and a glorious army it was! Not composed of men halting from the stews, or swept from the jails; but of the best blood, the real yeomanry of the country-noble cavaliers, men without fear and without reproach. We had such an army in 1776, and Washington at its head. We have an army in 1808, and a head to it.

.

I will not humiliate those who lead the fortunes of the nation at the present day, by any comparison with the great men of that period. But I recommend the advocates of the present system of public measures to study well the true spirit of 1776, before they

venture to call it in aid of their purposes. It may bring in its train some recollections not suited to give ease or hope to their bosoms. I beg gentlemen who are so frequent in their recurrence to that period, to remember, that among the causes which led to a separation from Great Britain, the following are enumerated: "Unnecessary restrictions upon trade; cutting off commercial intercourse between the colonies; embarrassing our fisheries; wantonly depriving our citizens of necessaries; invasion of private property by governmental edicts; the authority of the commander-inchief, and under him of the brigadier-general, being rendered supreme in the civil government; the commander-in-chief of the army made governor of a colony; citizens transferred from their native country for trial." Let gentlemen beware how they appeal to the spirit of '76; lest it come with the aspect, not of a friend, but of a tormentor; lest they find a warning, when they look for support, and instead of encouragement they are presented with an awful lesson.

But repealing the embargo will be submission to tribute. The popular ear is fretted with this word tribute; and an odium is attempted to be thrown upon those, who are indignant at this abandonment of their rights, by representing them as the advocates of tribute. Sir, who advocates it? No man in this country, I believe. This outcry about tribute is the veriest bugbear that was ever raised, in order to persuade men to quit rights which God and nature had given them. In the first place, it is scarce possible, that, if left to himself, the interest of the merchant could ever permit him to pay the British re-exportation duty, denominated tribute. France, under penalty of confiscation, prohibits our vessels from receiving a visit from an English ship, or touching at an English port. In this state of things, England pretends to permit us to export to France certain articles, paying her a duty. The statement of the case shows the futility of the attempt. Who will pay a duty to England for permission to go to France to be confiscated? Bu suppose there is a mistake in this, and that it may be the interest of the merchant to pay such duty, for the purpose of going to certain destruction, have not you full powers over this matter? Cannot you, by pains and penalties, prohibit the merchant from the payment of such a duty? No man will obstruct you. There is, as I believe, but one opinion upon this subject. I hope, therefore, that gentlemen will cease this outcry about tribute.

However, suppose that the payment of this duty is inevitable, which it certainly is not, let me ask-Is embargo independence? Deceive not yourselves. It is palpable submission. Gentlemen exclaim, Great Britain "smites us on one cheek." And what does administration? Gentlemen say,

"It turns the other also."

Great Britain is a robber; she takes our cloak." And what say administration? "Let her take our coat also." France and Great Britain require you to relinquish a part of your commerce, and you yield it entirely. Sir, this conduct may be the way to dignity and honor in another world, but it will never secure safety and independence in this.

At every corner of this great city we meet some gentlemen of the majority wringing their hands and exclaiming" What shall we do? Nothing but embargo will save us. Remove it, and what shall we do?" Sir, it is not for me, an humble and uninfluential individual, at an awful distance from the predominant influences, to suggest plans of government. But to my eye, the path of our duty is as distinct as the milky way; all studded with living sapphires; glowing with cumulating light. It is the path of active preparation; of dignified energy. It is the path of 1776. It consists not in abandoning our rights, but in supporting them, as they exist, and where they exist on the ocean, as well as on the land. It consists in taking the nature of things, as the measure of the rights of your citizens; not the orders and decrees of imperious foreigners. Give what protection you can. Take no counsel of fear. Your strength will increase with the trial, and prove greater than you are now aware.

But I shall be told, "This may lead to war." I ask, “Are we now at peace?" Certainly not, unless retiring from insult be peace; unless shrinking under the lash be peace. The surest way to prevent war is not to fear it. The idea, that nothing on earth is so dreadful as war, is inculcated too studiously among us. Disgrace is worse. Abandonment of essential rights is worse.

Sir, I could not refrain from seizing the first opportunity of spreading before this house the sufferings and exigencies of New England, under this embargo. Some gentlemen may deem it not strictly before us. In my opinion, it is necessarily. For, if the idea of the committee be correct, and embargo is resistance, then this resolution sanctions its continuance. If, on the contrary, as I contend, embargo is submission, then this resolution is a pledge of its repeal.

SPEECH OF JOHN RANDOLPH,

DELIVERED

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
UNITED STATES, DECEMBER 10, 1811,

On the second resolution reported by the committee of foreign relations, "That an additional force of ten thousand regular troops ought to be immediately raised, to serve for three years; and that a bounty in lands ought to be given to encourage enlistment."

MR. SPEAKER,

This is a question, as it has been presented to this house, of peace or war. In that light it has been argued; in no other light can I consider it, after the declarations made by members of the committee of foreign relations. Without intending any disrespect to the chair, I must be permitted to say, that if the decision yesterday was correct, "that it was not in order to advance any arguments against the resolution, drawn from topics before other committees of the house," the whole debate, nay, the report itself, on which we are acting, is disorderly, since the increase of the military force is a subject, at this time, in agitation by a select committee, raised on that branch of the president's message. But it is impossible that the discussion of a question, broad as the wide ocean of our foreign concerns, involving every consideration of interest, of right, of happiness, and of safety at home; touching, in every point, all that is dear to freemen, "their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor," can be tied down by the narrow rules of technical routine.

The committee of foreign relations have, indeed, decided that the subject of arming the militia (which has been pressed upon them as indispensable to the public security), does not come within the scope of their authority. On what ground, I have been and still am unable to see, they have felt themselves authorized to recommend the raising of standing armies, with a view (as has been declared) of immediate war-a war, not of defence, but of conquest, of aggrandizement, of ambition-a war foreign to the interests of this country-to the interests of humanity itself.

I know not how gentlemen, calling themselves republicans, can advocate such a war. What was their doctrine in 1798 and '9, when the command of the army-that highest of all possible trusts in

« AnteriorContinuar »