FEBRUARY, 1815. Military Peace Establishment. Mr. HANSON, of Maryland, addressed the Chair as follows: Mr. Speaker, it is because I am unwilling to consume much of the precious time of the House, at this late period of the session, that I rise with reluctance to reply to the honorable gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. CALHOUN.) The Constitutional day for terminating the deliberations of this body is at hand; and a discussion, involving a question of such magnitude as the Treaty of Peace, cannot be disposed of in the manner which all parties would desire. The reluctance I have expressed, is not meant as mere matter of form, by way of exordium. It is sincerely felt. But in avowing it, I must not be suspected of any disposition, from personal or political motives, to avoid a discussion, which the honorable gentleman appears to seek. I rejoiced with all my heart at the restoration of peace, and I should now rejoice at such a discussion of the provisions of the treaty as sooner or later must take place. Could I have my choice, I would choose this day for the discussion. I feel every disposition to communicate to my constituents the reflections naturally arising out of the new state of things which exists. When the proper moment does arrive, and the House consents to take up this question for full discussion, I shall hold myself in readiness to engage in it with the solemnity it requires, and to the extent of which I may be capable. It will still depend very much upon the prudence and discretion of gentlemen in the majority, whether the few remaining days of the session will be consumed in a debate, which by no means promises to be a very profit H. OF R. independent minds, and warp the strongest judg ments. In the vote I am prepared to give upon the proposed reduction of the Army, I am governed not at all by an apprehension that Great Britain is disposed to violate the treaty, or in bad faith to create any difficulties or delay in withdrawing her troops from our territory. But is it the part of a prudent and wise Government to repose entirely for its safety upon the honor and good faith of nations? While an inch of our territory is occupied by foreign troops, I can never consent to lay down our arms. It would be taking upon myself a responsibility which I could neither justify to my own conscience, my constituents, or my country. Certainly, I do not contemplate imposing upon the people the burden of a Military War Establishment in a time of peace. I know my duty, and understand the feelings of the people too well to contract the danger of a political error so unpardonable. I entertain no such design. All I ask is, that Fort Niagara be restored, that Castine be evacuated, before I will give my vote to reduce the Army below ten thousand men. The present War Establishment, authorized by law, exceeds sixty thousand men. I am ready at once to lop off five-sixths of the Army. I join gentlemen in voting to-day to dismiss fifty thousand; but further I cannot go consistently with my ideas of prudence, and a just sense of the obligations imposed upon me by my situation. On our Northern border, the late enemy presents a formidable force. From the best information, he is twenty thousand strong, with at least five thousand well disciplined militia co-operating with this powerful veteran army. Will the people agree, would it comport with the dignity and character of a Government deserving the respect of foreign nations, and the confidence of its own people, entirely to disarm itself immediately upon the ratification of a treaty, and under circumBefore I enter upon the execution of the task I stances known to exist in this country? We first have assigned myself, it will be proper to notice, catch at the treaty with the ravenous avidity of a as first in order, the particular question of reducing condemned malefactor accepting a reprieve with the Military Establishment to the standard pro- a halter around his neck. It is ratified almost posed, six thousand men. On this subject, I en- without deliberation, as though it were predetertirely concur in the opinion expressed by my mined to take it, "sight unseen," be its provisions friend next to me, (Mr. GROSVENOR.) I agree ever so humiliating and derogatory to an indewith him, that it would be contrary to the dic-pendent nation. Then we disband our Army, tates of prudence, and the best maxims of wisdom, regarded by all provident and well regulated Governments, to disarm the country in the present state of its affairs. I agree in the statesmanlike view he has concisely and eloquently taken of this subject. It would undoubtedly be impolitic and unsafe to cut down our Military Establishment to the peace standard, before Great Britain had complied with the provisions of the treaty, and restored the important military posts she now occupies within our territory. I am happy to find that opinion confirmed and corroborated by my experienced and worthy colleague who sits near me, (Mr. STUART.) He has given his opinion also, to the House, in the language of a soldier and a statesman, uninfluenced by those little party feelings which sometimes sway the most able one to them. Already has the gentleman from South Carolina said enough to justify the few remarks I propose to offer in reply to his extraordinary as sertions, and the strange and unexpected positions he has ventured to lay down. strip ourselves of all defence, while foreign troops are still in the occupation of important military posts. Is this the conduct to be looked for from an exalted Government, intrusted with the conservatory power of a free and high minded-people? What can be more unwise, more undignified? What better calculated to draw down on both the contempt and derision of foreign nations? Our national character may already be sunk extremely low, but the popular course, as it is deemed, proposed now to be pursued, will sink it still lowerlower than the bitterest enemy of the Administration can desire to see it sunk. I stand not here, sir, the supporter of large standing armies in time of peace. But unpopular as the vote may be considered, I am ready to encounter the odium of preserving a commanding H. OF R. cumstances. Military Peace Establishment. FEBRUARY, 1815. on the law of nations on this point, still it is in my power to refer to the high authority of the gentleman himself to settle the question between us. attitude, until the relations of peace are perfectly restored, and each party reassumes its posture before the war. I will not allow myself to doubt, for a moment, what would be the determination of the minority if the reins of Government were The position I contend for is this: Impressin their hands, and they were responsible for the ment being assigned as a principal cause of war, character and safety of the country. I have only both in the Message of the President recommendto refer to their known principles, and the politi-ing war, and the celebrated manifesto promulcal maxims by which they have always been gated by the Committee of Foreign Relations, governed, to pronounce the policy which would and a Treaty of Peace having been ratified, in prevail at such a moment and under existing cir- which no provision whatever is made for this claim, it is ipso facto abandoned, and war cannot be renewed for the same cause. The broad principle laid down by Vattel, and controverted by no public writer, supports my position. "A Treaty of Peace," says this writer, "abolishes the subject of the war, and prohibits the taking up arms again for the same cause." As far, then, as impressment was a cause of war, it is abolished by the Treaty of Peace, and we are precluded by our own act from taking up arms again for the same cause. But the gentleman repels this principle of public law with disdain. He is still resolved never to relinquish the claim of impressment. He will cling to it because of its justice, and because the law is on his side. My honorable friend before me, (Mr. STOCKTON.) upon whose opinion I am in the habit of relying almost implicitly, from his known strength of judgment, purity, and disinterestedness, acknowledges himself to be influenced by the threatening declarations of some gentlemen over the way, who look to a renewal of hostilities with England. He says, he is alarmed by declarations of the kind, proceeding from such high authority. For my part, sir, I am influenced by no such feelings. There is nothing in these warlike menaces which at all disturbs my mind. The honorable gentleman attaches too much importance to the airy, inconsiderate, idle declarations that proceed from some gentlemen, who fancy them- Upon the question of law, the gentleman's selves as filling, on this floor, the stations of Lords opinion has undergone a material change since Castlereagh and Liverpool, or the Chancellor in the year 1813. I have fortunately found, on the the British Parliament. So far from seeing in records of the House, the gentleman's opinion in this vaporing declamation real cause of alarm, to writing, drawn up after mature deliberation, and use a vulgar figure, I should just as soon expect a gravely pronounced by him in a report, as chairscalded cat to jump into a cauldron of boiling man of the Committee on Foreign Relations. water as to suspect this Administration of a de- The position assumed in this report was recogsign to plunge the country into another war with nised and adopted by the House, being laid on England. The gentleman from New Jersey may the table and ordered to be printed. It is now rest assured the intentions of the majority are matter of record; and, from that record, the pasquite as innocent as their declarations. An indi-sage I propose to read is in the following words: vidual who has got disgracefully out of a quarrel, may, in charity, be allowed the consolation and relief to be derived from a courageous threat to renew the conflict. In private life, these instances are quite common, and they generally end with the threat. I will abstain from the remarks which belong to this subject, and proceed to reply to the gentleman from South Carolina. I begin, sir, by acknowledging myself to be entirely at a loss for the proper language in which to express my amazement at the principles he has laid down, and the positions he has taken. In these, not all the gentleman's ingenuity, great as it is known and admitted to be, can sustain him. He says, we have neither abandoned nor impaired any claim for which the war was declared, by accepting a treaty which is silent as to those claims. He contends that the question of impressment, as a claim, remains where it was before the war. With his accustomed confidence and boldness, he asserts that the claim of this Government was the protection of its own seamen; and he denies, unequivocally, that we ever contended for "the immunity of our flag," while the British set up the right to impress our seamen. The gentleman's first position involves an important principle of public law. If there were any variance among the most approved writers "The impressment of our seamen being deservedly considered a principal cause of the war, the war ought to be prosecuted until that cause is removed. To appeal to arms in defence of a right, and to lay them down without securing it, or a satisfactory evidence of a good disposition in the opposite party to secure it, would be considered in no other light than a relinquishment of it. To attempt to negotiate afterwards for the security of such right, in the expectation that any of the arguments that had been urged before the declaration of war, and been rejected, would have more weight after that experiment had been made in vain, would be an act of folly, which would expose us to the scorn and derision of the British nation and the whole world." In defence of their pretension upon this question of impressment, the party in power appealed to arms; and I call on them to deny, if they can, that they have laid down their arms without securing the right contended for. According to their own view of the subject, as set forth in the report of their committee, have they not relinquished the claim? It is not a circumstance too trivial to repeat, that the gentleman who now finds it convenient to deny and combat the doctrines and principles contained in the report of the committee, was himself chairman of that committee. Unless, as is frequently the case with these chairman of standing committees, he acted FEBRUARY, 1815. Military Peace Establishment. H. of R. It extended to the whole crew, whether enemies or British deserters. The gentleman will concede this point, unless his own authority is considered higher than the Secretary of State's. as the mere amanuensis or scribe of the Execu-men. Does the gentleman deny that he was the chairman of the Committee of Foreign Relations when this report was made to the House? From his silence, we must infer this point at least is conceded. If it were not, the Journal of the House is at hand, and would as readily settle this difference as the report itself settled the other point in dispute. Nor does the gentleman deny that the extract read contains the opinion entertained by him, at the time the report was made. The difficulty and embarrassment of the gentleman's situation must occur to him, as it is certainly obvious to the House. Is it not manifest that he was guilty, at the time of making the famous war report, of imposing false principles of public law upon the credulity of his supporters; or he now renounces and abjures his own sound doctrines because it is convenient, party purposes requiring it? The gentleman's situation is by no means enviable. Take which alternative he may, there stands the difficulty staring him in the face. Turn which way he will, his difficulty fronts him. It is his own fault, not mine, that his embarrassment is such as I have described. I contend, sir, that the gentleman's opinion, as deliberately formed, and gravely expressed, in 1813, is more to be respected than a contradictory opinion now hastily pronounced in debate, when he finds himself rather closely pressed in argument, and is disposed to extricate himself in the readiest way he can. A denial or a round assertion is the usual recourse of some gentlemen, when reduced to such straights. Custom may familiarize the practice, and make it venial in the vulgar estimate, but I neither choose to be guilty of it myself, nor overlook it when resorted to by others. I trust, sir, the gentleman's first position is disposed of to the satisfaction of the House. I proceed to notice his second, to wit, "that we did not take up arms to secure the immunity of our flag, but to defend our own seamen." Here again I have occasion to correct the gentleman's memory. I must refer him to an extract or two, from the public documents, which I have fortunately laid my hands on since the gentleman took the floor. In the letter of instructions sent to our Ministers, appointed to negotiate under the mediation of Russia, dated April 15th, 1813, he may find this passage: "I have to repeat, that the great object you have to secure, in regard to impressment, is that the flag shall protect the crew." What other meaning can the ingenious gentleman attach to this instruction, than the securing the immunity of our flag, as relates to the crew? The flag was to protect all the crew, consist it of British subjects, deserters, or who not. Our claim then went beyond the protection of our own sea 6 The same instruction referred to is still more explicit, in another part of it, upon the same point. Mr. Monroe continues, "your first duty is to conclude a peace with Great Britain; and you are authorized to do it, in case you obtain a satisfactory stipulation against impressmentone which will secure, under our flag, protection to the crew." Language cannot be plainer. Provided a stipulation can be obtained by which the crew of our merchant vessels, of whatever description, shall be protected from impressment, you may conclude a peace, but not otherwise. To say nothing of making our claim upon the subject of impressment a sine qua non, and then abandoning it, (for it is not my present purpose to take that view of the question,) what other meaning can be given to this instruction, but that our flag should be free and inviolate as regarded the crew. 6 ་ In a subsequent instruction to our Ministers at Gottenburg, of 28th January, 1814, Mr. Monroe says: "On impressment, as to the right of the United States to be exempted from it, I have nothing new to add. The sentiments of the President have undergone no change on that important subject. This degrading practice must ' cease. Our flag must protect the crew, or the 6 United States cannot consider themselves an independent nation." Yet the gentleman says, we went not to war for the immunity of our flag; all we contended for, was the protection under our flag of American seamen. It would really appear as if the gentleman was totally ignorant of the correspondence with our Ministers abroad, and with foreign Governments, or if he ever read the public documents, that he has entirely forgotten them. It is impossible, otherwise he would have ventured on such an assertion, being aware of the facility with which he could be answered. 6 เ To place in a still clearer light, if possible, the claim of our Government, I must refer again to documentary evidence. In a letter to Lord Castlereagh, dated 24th August, 1812, Mr. Russell states his authority to stipulate an armistice with Great Britain, "on condition that the Orders in 'Council be repealed, and no illegal blockades be substituted to them, and that orders be immediately given to discontinue the impressment of persons from American vessels, and to restore the citizens of the United States already impressed." In other words, the United States is to be exempted from impressment. All persons," enemies of the belligerent, British deserters, fugitives from justice, traitors, or no matter who, all persons were to be protected by our flag. The flag was to cover the crew. The same ground is taken, in rejecting the armistice made by Governor Prevost and General Dearborn. The same ground is taken in refusing to make an armistice with Admiral Warren; and, until to-day, I never heard it denied that the pretension set up by this Administration and its supporters was what I have proved it to be. To do full justice to the subject, it would be necessary to consult the documents as far back as the negotiation between Mr. Monroe and Lords Auckland and Holland. The gentleman has also contended, that the British claim of impressment was to take American seamen, and that the resistance of this usurpation and outrage constituted the strength and justice of our cause. I deny, sir, that any such claim was ever set up by Great Britain; and I do not propose to meet the assertion by a bare denial on my own part, or on the part of Great Britain, who has repeatedly disclaimed any such pretension. I propose to meet it with an authority which this House will consider much higher than either. In a letter from Colonel Monroe to Admiral Warren, October 27th, 1812, I have found this passage, "The claim of the British Government is to take from the merchant vessels of other countries British subjects." FEBRUARY, 1815. the first, and still think, it should take place if possible. The people look for it; they have a right to expect it. I am anxious to gratify them. For allow me to say on this question, the Executive is vulnerable at every point. An inveterate opponent of the Administration would select this as the choicest opportunity to gratify the most splenetic resentment against them. Therefore, on this side of the House no suspicion will be cast, certainly, by the gentleman, of an unwillingness to meet the question in any shape and at any time. Before I sit down, sir, I beg leave to express the deep concern I feel at differing with so large a majority of my political friends. Conscious rectitude, and a perfect conviction of the correctness of the view which mature reflection has given the subject to my mind, has left me no choice but to separate in the present vote. The more I examine the question, the more confirmed am I in the opinion that it would be undignified, unwise, and unsafe to disarm the country before the foreign troops are withdrawn from our territory. Without disgracing his office, and implicating Instead of presuming entirely upon the good faith the character of his Government for veracity, the of any nation, it is the part of a provident, wise, Secretary of State could not allege that any other and well regulated Government to act upon the claim had ever been set up by Great Britain, but contrary presumption. I agree with gentlemen, to seize her own subjects when found on board the country is much exhausted, and a system of neutral vessels. That, in the exercise of this right rigid economy and frugality will be necessary to of impressing her own subjects, great, shameful, recover and invigorate its resources. Our means and unsufferable abuses were frequently commit- have been squandered, shamefully wasted, to a ted, is not disputed and was never denied. But degree exciting very just anxiety and alarm, but what I aim to establish is, that the British claim I still hope we are not reduced so low that a renever went beyond the impressment of the sub-spectable force cannot be maintained for a few jects of Great Britain. Our claim was to protect months more, until our territory shall have been British subjects sailing under our flag. We iden- cleared of foreign troops, and the military posts tified the dearest rights of the people and the na- in his possession restored. Not, sir, that I seritional independence with this claim. "The flag ously apprehend any difficulty in the fulfilment must protect the crew, or the United States can- in good faith, by both parties, of all the provisions not consider themselves an independent nation." of the treaty; but I am compelled to vote in the Our very independence is staked for the protection present case as I would were my friends in power, of foreign fugitives. The issue was predicted. and responsible for the due administration of the It is now matter of history. Government, and the safety of the country. I consider the majority, in this instance, as acting according to the wisest political maxims, and upon Federal principles. I will not, therefore, vote against the measure because it is their measure. I will not enter the lists in a race for popularity, in opposition to what may be the best interests of the country. My friends will engage in no such contest. It is to be feared, however, that the votes of many of the majority, who have Knowing the general desire of the House to declared in favor of disarming the country at postpone to the next session an inquiry into the once, are influenced by a desire to propitiate poploss and gain by the war, and the provisions of ular favor. But it must be the better opinion, the Treaty of Peace, I shall not cross its wishes that the wise and reflecting portion of the people by commencing the discussion. The extraordi- will prefer our preserving a respectable state of nary course taken in debate by the honorable defence until all danger has disappeared. They gentleman from South Carolina, required at least will consider the slight additional expense of as much as I have said. I would have him know, maintaining a few thousand troops, more than that I am not desirous of avoiding a full discus- necessary in a time of peace, as nothing compared sion of the treaty and all the topics connected with the enormous burdens which a continuance with it. If there are but few on either side of or a renewal of the war would render necessary. the House who think the discussion should be In the other branch of the Legislature, I learn with brought on this session, and gone through thor-pleasure there prevails an unusual unanimity in oughly, I am one of the few who thought from favor of the course I have presumed to defend. I I flatter myself it has been shown, from authority to which the honorable gentleman will bow, that his notions about the opposite claims of the two countries are altogether fanciful and erroneous. I have before established, upon his own authority, that a Treaty of Peace which does not secure the right for which the war was declared, operates its abandonment, or to use his own words, its "relinquishment." FEBRUARY, 1815. Military Peace Establishment. entertain a hope it will be the course adopted It has prudence and dignity on its side; it has the example of all nations on its side. For there never was an instance of a wise and well regulated Government laying down its arms immediately on the ratification of a Treaty of Peace, under the circumstances described and known to exist in the present case. I hope the blank will be filled with at least ten thousand men. Mr. CALHOUN again rose. Nothing, he said, was more easy, than by taking detached parts of papers, and omitting to take circumstances into view, entirely to misrepresent any question. If the gentleman last up, who had quoted a part of the instructions to our Ministers, had read a little more of that report, he would have perceived the gross error of the construction he had put upon it; for he would have found that our Ministers were authorized to have made a treaty, containing a stipulation respecting impressment, to terminate at the conclusion of a peace in Europe; the object being to guard against the possible continuance of the practice of impressment during the war in Europe. He would have further seen, that the necessity for such a stipulation ceased. What, said Mr. C., was the injury which we complained of, and what was the claim of the enemy? The claim of the enemy was, that he had a right, in time of war, to enter on board American (neutral) vessels, and to judge who were American and who British seamen, and to take therefrom whomsoever he thought proper. What was the ground of complaint on our side? That the enemy, in the exercise of this pretended right, frequently took American seamen, to the detriment of the commerce, and deprivation of the personal liberty of American citizens. At the time those instructions were expedited to our Ministers there was a war raging in Europe, which no gentleman then pretended to think would come to a termination in many years. It appeared to be a contest which would endure for a series of years, having already, with little intermission, lasted twenty years. Those statements, and those instructions, a part of which had been quoted, were then given, respecting the question of impressment, as springing out of a state of war; and it was at that time the report was made to this House, proclaiming the necessity of unceasing resistance of so grievous an injury. That state of war, Mr. C. continued, having ceased, and with it the evil of impressment, there was no necessity to continue the war on that account; and, had we continued the war on that account, what then would have been the language of the gentleman and his friends? That statesmen go to war for practical injuries; that, as Great Britain never impresses in time of peace in Europe, in the present state of things to have continued the war on that ground, would have been fighting to resist a speculative claim, on the part of the British Government, which in practice had ceased. To have done so would have been unwise, and would have met the severest reprobation of the gentlemen on that side of the House. Everybody who heard him knew, Mr. C. said, that such would have been H. OF R. the clamor rung from one end of the country to the other. Any one who adverted to the very document, of which the gentleman had read a part, would find his whole argument answered by it, (taking in connexion with it the circumstances of the world,) as completely and demonstrably as any proposition in Euclid. The idea that we had relinquished our right in this respect, because it was not recited in the Treaty, was, in his opinion, preposterous. It could not be maintained by the semblance of an argument. It is not at all affected by it, unless that it is fortified by the events of the present war, and the spirit with which it has been waged, which will prob ably make foreign Powers more careful of invading our rights. The benefit of the claim to Britain can never compensate for the injury she might sustain by provoking us to war in resistance of it, and in defence of the personal liberty of the citizens. In the late war this nation has acquired a character which will secure respect to its rights. If ever an American citizen should be forcibly impressed, Mr. C. said, he should be ready again to draw the sword in his defence; and no Government could prosper that would, with impuni ty, permit such a damnable violation of the personal rights of its citizens. Government itself is only protection; and they cannot be separated. I feel pleasure and pride, said Mr. C., in being able to say, that I am of a party which drew the sword on this question, and succeeded in the contest; for, to all practical purposes, we have achieved complete success. Mr. KING, of Massachusetts, spoke as follows: Mr. Speaker, I regret to consume, on this subject, even a few moments of the remainder of the session; so pressing and important is the business which ought to engage our attention. But it does appear to me, that in the wide range which gentlemen have taken, they have lost sight of the object and provisions of the bill. It is to fix the Military Peace Establishment of the United States, and has no relation to our connexion with foreign nations, or even to the position and intentions of our late enemy. All arguments, therefore, drawn from these considerations, or sources, are entirely out of place. But suppose further danger was to be apprehended from your late enemy, or from Spain, or any other Power, does not the fifth section of the bill leave it discretionary with the President, whether to disband your regular army, on the first day of April next, or not? Should circumstances render it necessary, in his opinion, you give him the power, however improperly, to retain the whole of your present army. And there can be no doubt of his disposition to do it, whether warranted by circumstances or not. The power of wielding sixty thousand swords, or of turning sixty thousand bayonets against his foreign or domestic foes, possesses infinite charms for him, and the patronage which they confer is all-important, the vital principle, to him, and most profitable to his friends. Sir, when I came to the House this morning and saw a flock of Executive birds, of ill omen, |