H. OF R.] Answer to the President's Speech. quenchable hatred; we have seen them, after entering into Treaties of Amity and Commerce, suddenly roused by the spirit of avarice, and, disregarding all the most sacred engagements, plunged into the most remoreless war. When we see those passions, shall we say, the milder affections have no place in the human heart to counterbalance such horrid passions? Forbid it, Reason, and forbid it, Truth! He trusted if our Government had erred, becoming pains would be taken to remove the sense of injury. That there had been favors conferred on our nation, which should impel us to this act of natural justice, he could prove. What was the language of our Government when we sought and obtained the succors of France? When in our need, we breathed not a sound but eternal gratitude for disinterested favors for benefits magnanimously bestowed? What was our language in the hour of peril, when the threatenings of all Europe rung in her ears? Was it necessary for us to assert, at the hour in which we stood no longer in need of her support, that, although we felt some gratitude in the hour of our distress, that we now felt it no longer? Was it preserving the dignity of our country, the honor of our Government, and the respectability of a virtuous and independent nation? No. He believed that such conduct had lessened us in the eyes of the world, and that it became us now to retrieve our character by the removal of that falsification of the national probity. Let us look to the declaration of our Government, that we may ascertain what we thought of the favors of France in former periods. Look into the Journals of Congress of the 6th of August, 1778, and there it will be found "That the treaties between His Most Christian Majesty and the United States of America so fully demonstrated his wisdom and magnanimity as to command the reverence of all nations. The virtuous citizens of America, in particular, can never forget his beneficent attention to their violated rights, nor cease to acknowledge the hand of a gracious Providence in raising them up so powerful and illustrious a friend." He hoped this gratitude would never be forgotten or done away; he hoped we should never fly in the face of that Providence by such blasphemy, but that the same Power which it had raised up in our adversity, would be respected in our prosperity. Have we respected ourselves in this unhappy case? What were the sentiments of our predecessors in 1783? On the 16th of April, that year, a committee was appointed, consisting of Mr. Madison, Mr. Ellsworth, and Mr. Hamilton, to report on the subject of the 5 per cent. impost, and among the inducements for its adoption by the States, they say [MAY, 1797. In December of the same year,.upon the resignation of General Washington, Congress declare to him "You have persevered till the United States, aided by a magnanimous King and nation, have been enabled, under a just Providence, to close the war in freedom, safety, and independence.” And is it now, that, irritated by unworthy or odious bickerings, we shall take upon us to fly in the face of our history-of our living and immortal history-and attempt to unsay all this? Yes. A production communicated to us last session, from one of the departments of our Government, and published to America and all the world, treats all these solemn records as things founded on error and falsehood, or on hypocrisy. In that very publication we are told that the Minister of France, through whom America received those signal benefits and support, had descended to intrigue against those very liberties, upon the support of which so much had been expended, and such distinguished measures carried into decisive execution. We are taught there to believe (if folly itself could be so credulous) that France interfered, privately, to prevent what she made such efforts to secure! And this is the language by which France is to be persuaded of our love of justice, of our love of virtue, of our infallibility, of our regard for the dignity of our country, whose sentiments are one and the same with the Government! Oh, said Mr. L., let me not pass over unnoticed that joy which I so well remember to have beamed on every countenance upon the inspiring tidings that France had joined her arms to ours in defence of our liberties-no, it can never be erased from my heart, in the gloomy horrors of desolation and an assassinating war. I could read by the light of those flames which consumed my paternal mansion, by the joy that sparkled in every eye, how great were the consequences of her union to America. I feel the revival of that animating joy kindle this moment in my bosom. I will forever cherish it in my heart of hearts, and I trust never to part with it till I shall part with every other sensation. Yet, after all, sooner than sacrifice one right— one principle-or make one unjust concession to France, he would sooner sacrifice his life; but he would still sooner behave like a truly dignified man, and acknowledge his error, if he should appear to have committed one, than support the etror, with the utmost certainty of success. France, then, may certainly complain, without justly exciting that indignation at her presumption, which some gentlemen express. She is charged with the commission of various injuries; the dismission of our Minister; the commission "If other motives than those of justice could be of depredations on our commerce; with refusing requisite on this occasion, no nation could ever feel to treat upon our disagreements, and an interferstronger; for there are debts to be paid to an ally, in ence in our Government. Upon the first of these the first place, who, to the exertions of his arms in sup- subjects he felt a sense of indignity as much as port of our cause, has added the succors of his treasure; any man rise in his breast. He felt for the rewho, to his important loans, has added liberal dona-spectable person who had the painful task to entions; and whose loans themselves carry the impression of his magnanimity and friendship." counter, but he would not argue largely on that subject at this time, since it involved a considera MAY, 1797.] Answer to the President's Speech. tion of all the predisposing causes of that dismission; he would leave it to be the subject of amicable explanation; for, disguise it how we would, if we hold the language of the President, to war we must go. He would maintain what had been already done in the way of treaty; but he would leave it to the House to determine between better language and war. Our sense of infallibility and our conduct were like the two principles of the Indian mythology-ever at war with each other, and ruin would follow the obstinacy that resists all deliberation. The man who should pretend to attempt a negotiation at Paris, after such language from the Legislature and the Executive, should bear the cap and bells to save him from any other imputation than that of being a maniac. He could not expect to negotiate after them. But gentlemen affect to believe-either they must be very imperfectly informed on the subject, or they do not earnestly believe-that the dismission of our Minister was actually the violation of a right. Of what right? By what law of nations is the right established that one nation can insist on keeping a Minister in another, contrary to the will of that nation? He defied any man, however learned and however great. to point out the foundation of any such right. If, therefore, it is not a right, the denial to receive a Minister cannot be dispassionately considered as in itself an insult, although the circumstances attending it may be attended with marks of the most unpleasant disrespect; yet, even there, appearances are no more than the necessary consequences of the impressions made on the French Government, from the consideration of our conduct in the particulars before noticed, and a false light in which they have taken others; for, notwithstanding this marked expression of their resentment, if gentlemen will read the latter part of the Minister's letter, they will find him declare the sentiments of the Government: "I pray you to be persuaded, Citizen Minister, that this determination having become necessary," that is, necessary under their impressions of our conduct towards them, "allows to subsist between the French Republic and the American people the affection founded upon former benefits and reciprocal interests." But, say gentlemen, the Directory has said they "will not acknowledge nor receive another Minister Plenipotentiary from the United States until after the redress of the grievances demanded of the American Government, and which the French Government has a right to expect from it ;" and from this article, which precedes that which I have before quoted, gentlemen conclude that no Minister whatever will be received until we have conceded to them all they shall please to ask. He would not trouble the committee by further exposing absurdities so visible as the supposition of an exclusion of every kind of Minister, and all negotiation, because they declare they will not receive a Plenipotentiary Minister until those causes of complaint are removed. How are they, or how can they be put in the way of explanation or removal but by a Minister? Upon the subject of the complaints themselves, he had already 5th CoN.-5 [H. OF R. expressed his opinion that many of them were frivolous and others unfounded. It was frivolous, for instance, in our eyes, to complain of the arrangement of the names of the several States of Europe in an Almanac; but would any gentleman say that no intercourse can take place until this and others of a like kind are redressed. He believed it would only be necessary to explain their absurdity to redress them effectually. But the French Republic does not go so far as gentlemen appear to wish she had gone. She does not say you must redress every thing we complain of, but all those which she had a right to expect from the American Republic. And is it not by discussion and investigation that the question must be decided what she has and has not a right to demand redress of? If there is a possibility of another construction, and that would lead to war, which of them ought we to adopt? But it is said that Mr. Pinckney probably had power to negotiate upon all their complaints; he thought he had not; he had powers of this remarkable character, "to remove complaints by showing that they were groundless!" Is this the language of investigation, or of sturdy and fastidious pertinacity? Is it the language of conciliatory power? But what does Mr. Pinckney himself say on this subject? America and its Government, for they are one, are mis"I am thoroughly convinced that the sentiments of understood, and that I am not permitted even to attempt to explain them, or, in the terms of my letters of credence, endeavor to efface unfavorable impressions, to banish suspicions, and to restore that cordiality which was at once the evidence and pledge of a friendly union." Devoted as I am to the liberty, prosperity, and independence of my own country, the freedom, happiness, and perfect establishment of the French Republic have always been dear to me, and to have been instrumental in cementing the good understanding which, from the commencement of their alliance, has subsisted between the two nations, would have been the height of my ambition. I most fervently pray that there may be a speedy and candid investigation of those points in which you differ from us, that affection may lics may be perpetual." banish distrust, and that the alliance of the two Repub Had Mr. Pinckney been vested with any powers which would enable him to enter upon a candid investigation of the points of difference, would he have thus expressed a wish, instead of performing what he so much desired, and would have been his direct duty? No, his letters were those of an ordinary Minister-a mere successor to the power of his predecessor, and no more-and therefore another assertion that had been made, of their refusal to treat, was not a fact. Another ground is, the depredations on our commerce. This must be confessed to be a great and just cause of offence, but is it a cause that can in itself, without applying to negotiation, justify a war? In this place he felt it incumbent on him to notice a singularity that the sense of dignity and love of justice should have so much occupied the mind of the President in regard to the French depredations, as to shut out all reflection, to sup H. OF R.] Answer to the President's Speech. [MAY, 1797. He had already sufficiently proved that the alleged refusal to treat on the part of France was unfounded; there was yet one other cause of irritation of which we complained; it was the alleged interference of France between our people and the constituted authorities? What evidence have we of it? He would examine the foundation of this allegation in Mr. Pinckney's letter. He says: press all indignation which, in the natural order gotiation, we are betraying our country and layof reasoning, might have been expected to being it at the feet of a foreign nation? But if it was excited by the depredations of other nations. right and prudent at that time to avoid the reFrance alone appears capable of crimes; to her mote chances of those horrors, so dismaying, at offences only are we awakened to the call of dig- the immense sacrifices we made, is it not much nity, and roused to indignation; over others, a more so now? He would beg gentlemen to conLethean mist is drawn, and an irritation of the trast the consequences of the two chances of war, sense and feeling are tenderly avoided. Whence and to consider that the adoption of the Address, does this emphatic silence arise? Surely it does as it stands, without the amendment, most obnot proceed from any kindness to us at the hands viously leads to war. of Britain. It cannot be concealed that Britain has committed enormous depredations on our commerce, not perhaps to the same extent in value as those of France; but surely, when the nation is called to consider its situation and to provide for its security, the depredations of Britain were worthy of the nice regards of national dignity and Executive protection. There is one 'species of atrocity practised by that nation which France has never been so much as accused ofthe impressment of our seamen; our fellow-citizens have been forcibly taken on board British ships of war, and compelled to fight in a cause which they abhorred, and against a nation to whom they bore the best grounded affection; nay, more, they have been compelled to assist in depredations on their own country. Another violence which France has never pretended to offer, is the declaration of unalienable allegiance, the seizure of vessels belonging to persons who have become citizens of these States since 1783, and confiscating them as good prizes. France has not done either of these acts of violence upon us, and yet we have heard of no remonstrance; we are not even told of the indignity, nor alarmed at the humiliation. He would not impeach gentlemen's motives for their conduct in that House then any more than on former occasions; but at a time not long since, attempts were made to drive members from their right of opinion, by the terrors of impending war; while we exercised an undoubted right to reject a treaty acknowledged to be bad, and which none of us even now perhaps entirely approve. Apprehensions were excited and phantoms raised up to appal us from solemn and prudent deliberation; every terrific image was employed to display the horrors of war; the ocean was represented to us as foaming with the pressure of a thousand prows ready to disgorge upon our shores all the furies and passions of war; the earth was made to groan with the trampling of the hosts of cavalry, spreading desolation and blood far and wide; our woods were described as in one immense blaze, while the scalping-knives reeked in the blood of our simple husbandmen; the heavens were de picted as filled with prodigies and portentous omens, warning us of our impending danger; and hell itself was described as already yawning ready to receive and punish us for our prodigality and rashness in rousing up the resentments of an indignant nation! Was it not singular that all these chimeras should so soon vanish, and now we should be told by the same persons who conjured up these delusive threatenings to shake our opinions, that because we seek for peace and ne "Those who regard us as being of some consequence, seem to have taken up an idea, that our Government acts upon principles opposed to the real sentiments of a large majority of our people, and they are willing to temporise until the event of the election of the President is known, thinking that if one public character is chosen, he will be attached to the interests of Great Britain, and that, if another character is elected, he will be devoted to the interests of France." And he then proceeds to say, that they think more humbly of us than we deserve; they think "that we are regardless of our national character, honor, and interests," and subjoins these remarkable words: "To eradicate this ill conceived and unfounded opinion, will be a work of time and labor, so greatly have they been prejudiced by misrepresentation." So the opinions entertained by the people of France, and those acknowledged by our Minister, actually exist upon the basis of misrepresentation; do they form a just ground of war? The speech of Barras is considered as insulting, but will gentlemen say that speech is a just ground of war? He confessed the incivility and the unfounded nature of the assertions contained in that speech, but shall we go to war as some wicked nations have done to control and overturn opinion? Are we sure we could remove prejudice or convince the French nation, or an individual of that nation, of its error by a war? and what should we profit by the effort? That speech, insulting as it is, concludes with assurances of good will to the people of America. It is rather remarkable that the Representatives of the American people should entertain resentments because a foreign nation has expressed an affection for their constituents! The American people and the Government are one, sir, and it is impossible to divide them. The American people have demonstrated to the world their attachment to their Government by an unanimous obedience to many laws which they have not approved. As well might the Batavian Republic declare war against us for the aspersions cast upon it by Mr. Quincy Adams, our Minister Resident near the Republic. In his letter of the 4th November, 1796, to the Secretary of State, he says: "The general disposition, even of the patriotic party MAY, 1797.] Answer to the President's Speech. in this country, favors cordially and sincerely the neutrality of the United States." After stating his opinion why, he adds: "But, at the same time, the patriotic party can have no avowed will different from that which may give satisfaction to the Government of France. They feel a dependence so absolute and irremovable upon their good will, that they will sacrifice every other inclination, and silence every other interest, when the pleasure of the French Government is signified to them, in such a manner as makes election necessary.". When a Minister of ours writes, and our Executive publishes, such a letter, and such insinuations as these, it should seem a most extraordinary example of inconsistency in us to take offence at the opinions of an agent of the Republic for a similar licentiousness; can we wonder when our Minister speaks thus contemptuously of a nation, that others should make use of a similar freedom with us? But, admitting for a moment that an appeal had been actually made to the people of the United States, and even that an attempt had been made to obtain influence with the people, contradistinguished from the Government, would the Government have anything to fear from such attempts? Are the people so little acquainted with their own interests and means of happiness, or have the Government so much to apprehend from their measures, that they could have to fear an issue of such efforts? No! every appeal which you make to the people, the more you strengthen the hands of the Government; it is in perfect unison with the practice of all nations to preposses the people with whom we are about to negotiate in our favor; it has been our own conduct repeatedly, and it ought to be our conduct now again. We ought, by the propriety and temper of language, and by the most sincere demonstrations of our regard for our engagements and neutrality, to remove the prejudices which the French people have been injuriously led to entertain concerning us. Our present President, when in the character of Minister in Holland, found the happy advantage which resulted from prepossessing that nation in our favor; it was by obtaining the good opinion of the people through the medium of letters written by him and published with his consent, that our Revolution derived such essential support, and our negotiations proved so successful; and who will attempt to rob him of the well merited praise due to his patriotic efforts on that important occasion ? It has been our uniform practice to make use of appeals to the people of other nations, and that distinguished from, and in opposition to, their several Governments. We appealed to the people of England, and to the people of Ireland, during our Revolution. and we went so far as to tell them of the injustice and oppression of their own Government, and to hope for their support He had lately read, as a reason for our forbearance, that the people would take a decided part against hostile measures; he did not think this reason was founded on any facts or on any basis of declared and assured evidence, but in whatever light it [H. of R. might be viewed, it could not be considered as a reasonable ground for pursuing hostility or provoking it by hostile language. However serious some of the matters in difference between the two Republics may be, and many of them were obviously trifling, he thought the House should pause before they adopt expressions encouraging irritation and provoking open hostility. We should weigh the important question whether-if even all that is charged against France is true and unprovoked on our part-there is still a possibility that we may be compelled to concession, and to retract our charges. In suspending the balances of war we should not calculate upon a positive and inevitable preponderancy in our favor. But in the Address we are told to adopt strong language. If we adopt the language of the report we shall follow that rash counsel, and the issue no man could foresee. He would, therefore, prefer the amendment which disarrayed our measures of that fashion of words only suited to war. But the amendment was objected to, and upon very singular, and indeed upon contradictory grounds. Let us examine these objections. One gentleman said it was too humiliating, and another that it was incorrect; one opposed it because it said too little, another because it said too much; and again one because it was too mild, and another because it was too strong; but one of those gentlemen, after expending a volume of breath upon the violent consequences of the amendment, at length condescends to qualify its vehemence with an if-it is an useful particle, and he would say, with Shakspeare, "Your if is a great peace-maker." But the objection to this amendment is, that we interfere with the Executive declaration; and, by implication, that we propose three things: to apologise to France, dictate to the Executive, and rely on France. To the first he would reply, that no apology is proposed, and even if it were, that such a step would be preferable to war. To the second he would compare the strong case of the King of Great Britain, who, although an hereditary monarch and possessed of the legal right to declare war, it is never done without previous notification, and without a thorough discussion and the delivery of advice from the Representative House, when deemed proper. Justly our Constitution does not preclude the Representatives of the American people from declaring their sentiments on a question involving their dearest interests. He did not think such arguments could be entertained in that House. He believed the President himself desired it; that he waited for our opinion, and that if we echoed his Speech we should not afford him that information which he sought. On the third point, a reliance upon France, he would not encounter it, because it was an airy nothing, having no foundation in the amendment. Upon the whole, if we reply as is desired by the report of the committee, we put an end to negotiation, because it precludes all discussion, by insisting on the maintenance of all past errors. We H. OF R.] Answer to the President's Speech. are therein positively declared to be incapable of mistake. Is it not then desirable to remove an obstacle fatal to negotiation, which decides, by anticipation, discussion on the complaints of France, and assumes the monopoly of wisdom and perfecting their rights of demanding redress to ourselves-is it not indispensably required by prudence and good sense that we should extricate whatever negotiator we may send, from a dilemma so clumsy and forbidding? [May, 1797. his own part he had no objection to the Answer reported. He could not concur in the opinion of the gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. BALDWIN,) that it bore evident appearances of being the composition of a young man; he thought it a just and proper composition. But, though he approved the composition, he would not say it could not be amended; he thought it possible it might. Still he could not concur in the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia. Indeed he did not know the drift of it, or whether he meant to strike out all the remainder of the Address. One gentleman has descanted upon the mild style of our Address of last session, and he sees, or thinks he sees-for it is second sight-in it the Whatever foundation there might be in the true cause of the dismission of our Minister from criticisms of the gentleman from Georgia, on the France; and he considers it as couched in terms draught of the Answer reported, he thought the even more humiliating than those of Mr. Jay's composition of the amendment was much more faulletter to Lord Grenville. He wished not to revive ty; in some parts its meaning was doubtful, and the painful remembrance of that humiliating let- in others very improper. He particularly obter, but he could not resist the imputation of the jected to the passage, "but we flatter ourselves Address of last session, because if there was any that the Government of France only intended to humiliation in it, the odium must fall equally on suspend the ordinary diplomatic intercourse, and the Senate, who had expressed ideas exactly cor- to bring into operation those extraordinary agenrespondent. But although he could not agree cies which are in common use between nations, with the gentleman in the humiliating compari- and which are confined in their attention to the son of the Address with the letter alluded to, he great causes of difference." He thought this was should still go so far as to acknowledge that he an idea which the House could not adopt. It apthought the language of the Address of last ses-peared unfortunate that gentleman had taken this sion tended to produce the effect the gentleman had assumed, but from a very different cause: it was the irritating language of both that produced it; and it was on that account above others that he was now compelled to prefer the amendment to the report, because the latter was dictated in the same irritating spirit. mode of amending the Address, by thus striking out in a tangent and making a new Address. than one hand. [Mr. Corr then went on to propose his amendments.] Mr. C. apologised for troubling the committee with this dry business; but as he had done it from a wish to contribute towards a spirit of conciliation in the determination of the question, he trusted he should stand excused. He would take the liberty of proposing, if he was in order, certain amendments, in lieu of those proposed, which he trusted would meet the wishes of the members of the committee; not that they would improve the Address as a composition, but A gentleman yesterday had asked where we probably make it worse, which was always the were to look for our prosperity: was it in the ru-case when a production was the work of more ined farmer, and merchant, the fall of produce and stagnation of trade? The fair inference from this question was, that our condition now was as bad as that of a state of war; it means this, or it means nothing. He would, therefore, ask that gentleman whether a war would raise the price of produce? Whether we should live as peaceably at home as we now do? Will a war protect our ships, enrich our merchants, increase our trade? Will a war produce any one effect that could enable us to benefit by the change? Every step towards irritation is a step towards war, and a war of the most ruinous nature, whose consequences were so various as to be incalculable. With all his efforts, however feeble in themselves, he would oppose it. He had uniformly opposed the measures which he long foresaw, and had at last led to this unfortunate crisis; but he yet relied on the virtue and magnanimity of his country that it would terminate favorably to our liberty, our happiness, and our natural alliances. Mr. Corr thought a greater degree of importance had been given to the business under discussion than it was entitled to. He regretted, with other gentlemen who had spoken on this subject, that the House had got into this habit of answering the President's Speech; but, having got into it, they must get out of it as well as they could. If it was to be a political thing, it would be well to pass it with as much harmony as possible. For Mr. HARPER believed these amendments could not come under consideration until that of the gentleman from Virginia was disposed of, by being adopted, rejected, or withdrawn. This being the case, he wished to set the gentleman from New York right in three facts which he had stated. The first was what he had mentioned respecting the Secretary of State having suppressed a part of an article of the armed neutrality in his correspondence with one of our agents abroad; and, he said, if he were disposed to treat that gentleman as he had treated the Secretary of State, he should say the misstatement arose from ignorance or prejudice; but he would not say so. He referred the gentleman to the history of the armed neutrality, and to the letter of the Secretary of State, upon which, if he only bestowed common attention, he would find the Secretary was perfectly in the right, and he in the wrong. [He read the article.] The next point was with respect to the letter written by our Minister from the Hague. The gentleman, he said, forgot that this letter was not |