66 dispensable necessity of closing the session of Congress without any attempt to limit the duration of the system. The consequence of this would be an aggravation for another year of all the evils which then were breaking down New England. I felt that my duty to my country called on me for a strenuous effort to prevent such calamities. And I was persuaded, that if the embargo was kept on during the year, there would be an open disregard and resistance of the laws. I was unwearied, therefore, in my endeavors to impress other members of. Congress with a sense of our common dangers. Mr. Jefferson has imputed mainly to me the repeal of the embargo, in a letter to which I have already alluded, and has stigmatized me on this account with the epithet of "pseudo-republican." Pseudo-republican" of course, I must be; as every one was in Mr. Jefferson's opinion, who dared to venture upon a doubt of his infallibility. But Mr. Jefferson has forgotten to mention the reiterated attempts made by him through a committee of his particular adherents (Mr. Giles, Mr. Wilson, Mr. C. Nicholas, and Mr. G. W. Campbell,) to detach me from my object. In the course of those consultations, I learned the whole policy of Mr. Jefferson; and was surprised as well as grieved to find, that in the face of the clearest proofs of the failure of his plan, he continued to hope against facts. Mr. Jefferson has honored me by attributing to my influence the repeal of the embargo. I freely admit that I did all I could to accomplish it, though I returned home before the act passed. The very eagerness with which the repeal was supported by a majority of the Republican party ought to have taught Mr. Jefferson that it was already considered by them as a miserable and mischievous failure. It is not a little remarkable, that many years afterwards, Mr. Jefferson took great credit to himself for yielding up, sud sponte, this favorite measure, to preserve, as he intimates, New England from open rebellion. What in me was almost a crime, became, it seems in him an extraordinary virtue. The truth is, that if the measure had not been abandoned when it was, it would have overturned the Administration itself, and the Republican party would have been driven from power by the indignation of the people, goaded on to madness by their sufferings. . . . The whole influence of the Administration was directly brought to bear upon Mr. Ezekiel Bacon and myself, to seduce us from what we considered a great duty to our country, and especially to New England. We were scolded, privately consulted, and argued with, by the Administration and its friends, on that occasion. I knew, at the time, that Mr. Jefferson had no ulterior measure in view, and was determined on protracting the embargo for an indefinite period, even for years. I was well satisfied, that such a course would not and could not be borne by New England, and would bring on a direct rebellion. It would be ruin to the whole country. Yet Mr. Jefferson, with his usual visionary obstinacy, was determined to maintain it; and the New England Republicans were to be made the instruments. Mr. Bacon and myself resisted, and measures were concerted by us, with the aid of Pennsylvania, to compel him to abandon his mad scheme. For this he never forgave me. The measure was not carried until I left Congress for home. The credit of it is due to the firmness and integrity of Mr. Bacon. One thing, however, I did learn, (and I may say it to you,) while I was a member of Congress; and that was, that New England was expected, so far as the Republicans were concerned, to do every thing, and to have nothing. They were to obey, but not to be trusted. This, in my humble judgment, was the steady policy of Mr. Jefferson at all times. We were to be kept divided, and thus used to neutralize each other. So it will always be, unless we learn wisdom for ourselves and our own interests. Joseph Story, Life and Letters (edited by William W. Story, Boston, 1851), 1, 183-187 passim. CHAPTER XIX-WAR OF 1812 123. A New England Secessionist (1811) BY REPRESENTATIVE JOSIAH QUINCY Quincy was conspicuous as a statesman, administrator, and educator. In Congress he was a leader of a hopeless but ardent minority of extreme Federalists. He saw that danger lurked in the growth of the slave power, and this foresight influenced the arguments in his most famous speech, from which this extract is taken. His later fame rests upon his administration of municipal affairs in Boston and upon his presidency of Harvard College. — For Quincy, see Edmund Quincy, Life of Josiah Quincy, Bibliography as in No. 113 above. - For similar protests, see No. 113 above. MR. R. SPEAKER, There is a great rule of human conduct, which he who honestly observes, cannot err widely from the path of his sought duty. It is, to be very scrupulous concerning the principles you select as the test of your rights and obligations; to be very faithful in noticing the result of their application; and to be very fearless, in tracing and exposing their immediate effects and distant consequences. Under the sanction of this rule of conduct, I am compelled to declare it as my deliberate opinion, that, if this bill passes, the bonds of this union are, virtually, dissolved; that the states, which compose it are free from their moral obligations, and that as it will be the right of all, so it will be the duty of some to prepare, definitely, for a separation; amicably, if they can, violently, if they must. The bill, which is now proposed to be passed, has this assumed principle for its basis; that the three branches of this national government, without recurrence to conventions of the people, in the states, or to the legislatures of the states, are authorised to admit new partners to a share of the political power, in countries out of the original limits of the United States. Now, this assumed principle, I maintain to be altogether without any sanction in the constitution. I declare it to be a manifest and atrocious usurpation of power; of a nature, dissolving, according to undeniable principles of moral law, the obligations of our national compact; and leading to all the awful consequences, which flow from such a state of things. . . Sir, what is this power, we propose now to usurp? Nothing less than a power, changing all the proportions of the weight and influence, possessed by the potent sovereignties composing this Union. A stranger is to be introduced to an equal share, without their consent. Upon a principle, pretended to be deduced from the constitution, this government, after this bill passes, may and will multiply foreign partners in power, at its own mere motion; at its irresponsible pleasure; in other words, as local interests, party passions, or ambitious views may suggest. . . . This is not so much a question, concerning the exercise of sovereignty, as it is who shall be sovereign. Whether the proprietors of the good old United States shall manage their own affairs in their own way; or whether they, and their constitution, and their political rights, shall be trampled under foot by foreigners, introduced through a breach of the constitution. The proportion of the political weight of each sovereign state, constituting this union depends upon the number of the states, which have a voice under the compact. This number the constitution permits us to multiply at pleasure, within the limits of the original United States; observing only the expressed limitations in the constitution. But when, in order to increase your power of augmenting this number, you pass the old limits, you are guilty of a violation of the constitution, in a fundamental point; and in one also, which is totally inconsistent with the intent of the contract, and the safety of the states, which established the association. . . But, says the gentleman from Tennessee, (Mr. Rhea,) "these people have been seven years citizens of the United States." I deny it, Sir— As citizens of New-Orleans, or of Louisiana, they never have been, and by the mode proposed they never will be, citizens of the U. States. They may be girt upon us for a moment, but no real cement can grow from such an association. But, says the same gentleman, “If I have a farm, have not I a right to purchase another farm, in my neighbourhood, and settle my sons upon it, and in time admit them to a share, in the management of my household?" Doubtless, Sir. But are these cases parallel? Are the three branches of this government owners of this farm, called the United States? I desire to thank heaven, they are not. I hold my life, liberty and property, and the people of the state, from which I have the honor to be a representative, hold theirs, by a better tenure than any this national government can give. Sir, I know your virtue. And I thank the Great Giver of every good gift, that neither the gentleman from Tennessee, nor his comrades, nor any, nor all the members of this house, nor of the other branch of the legislature, nor the good gentleman, who lives in the palace yonder, nor all combined, can touch these my essential rights and those of my friends and constituents, except in a limited and prescribed form. No, sir. We hold these by the laws, customs, and principles of the commonwealth of Massachusetts. Behind her ample shield, we find refuge, and feel safety. I beg gentlemen not to act upon the principle, that the commonwealth of Massachusetts is their farm. But, the gentleman adds, "what shall we do, if we do not admit the people of Louisiana into our union? our children are settling that country." Sir, it is no concern of mine what he does. Because his children have run wild and uncovered into the woods, is that a reason for him to break into my house, or the houses of my friends, to filch our children's clothes, in order to cover his children's nakedness? This constitution never was, and never can be, strained to lap over all the wilderness of the west, without essentially affecting both the rights and convenience of its real proprietors. It was never constructed to form a covering for the inhabitants of the Missouri and the Red River country. And whenever it is attempted to be stretched over them, it will rend asunder. . . . . . . Is there a moral principle of public law better settled, or more conformable to the plainest suggestions of reason, than that the violation of a contract by one of the parties may be considered as exempting the other from its obligations? . . . Again—it is settled as a principle of morality, among writers on public law, that no person can be obliged, beyond his intent at the time of the contract. Now who believes, who dare assert, that it was the intention of the people, when they adopted this constitution, to assign, eventually, to New-Orleans and Louisiana, à portion of their political power; and to invest all the people, those extensive regions might hereafter contain, with an authority over themselves and their descendants? . . . Do you suppose the people of the Northern and Atlantic States will, or ought to look on with patience and see representatives and senators, from the Red River and Missouri, pouring themselves upon this and the other floor, managing the concerns of a sea-board fifteen hundred miles, at least, from their residence ; and having a preponderancy in councils, into which, constitutionally, they could never have been admitted? I have no hesitation upon this point. They neither will see it, nor ought to see it, with content. It is the part of a wise man to foresee danger and to hide himself. This great usurpation, which creeps into this House, under the plausible |