objects of jealousy and hate to the Holy Alliance; to all the crowned heads of Europe? Sir, the hour of peril will come, and when that shall arrive, overwhelming as the current for retrenchment and cutting down may now be in this House, then will every man here agree with me in wishing that they had sought the preservation of our little army, navy, fortifications, and other defensive institutions, and had given them their greatest practicable strength and efficiency. At this period of profound peace, and when gentlemen suppose that war will never come, we do disagree most pointedly. The first cannon that shall be fired by an enemy, will be the signal for universal regret, that we had not preserved a more imposing attitude. At such a period as that, and even now I would not give the consolation I shall feel for the vote I am to give against this bill, small as may be the minority in which I may stand, for any other consolation I could derive from my public life. Prostrate, or even weaken your army and navy, and you invite aggression; your enemies will pour upon you with the ferocity of lions, and the strength of Hercules. Sir, I reiterate again and again, that I am for the practice of true economy, and for making every officer accountable even to the last cent; but I deprecate the present wavering policy of cutting down army, navy, and diminishing almost every salary. I deprecate the policy of unsettling every thing; of rendering all those institutions, which should be held most permanent and sacred, cheap, inefficient and worthless, by the rash and versatile course of this body, to which the people look for wisdom and protection. The very foundation on which the pillars of our Federal fabric is raised is "the common defence and general welfare." Shall we subvert the spirit of the Government by our present course? Shall we make our officers, of all kinds, poor and dependant? Our own body is changeable enough already; but shall we render it still more so, by a reduction of pay? Shall we send members of Cougress here to seek Executive offices and patronage, rather than pursue a wise independent course, calculated to benefit the country? JANUARY, 1821. gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. SIMKINS,) who had just taken his seat, in one sentiment, which was, that the bill now under consideration depends for its support on the exhausted condition of the Treasury. But, although this was at any time a very sufficient reason, he would yet remind the gentleman from South Carolina, that it was not with him (Mr. W.) the only reason. He had other, and he might add still higher motives for supporting the bill, as had been evinced by his conduct on many previous occasions. When there was no deficiency in the Treasury; when there was in fact a surplus of some millions he had been in favor of reducing the Army on account of the essential propriety, or natural adaptation of such a measure to the principle of our Government. Passing, however, for the present this part of the subject, he would subscribe fully to the opinion of the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. EUSTIS,) that we cannot go on with our establishments as they now exist. To the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. W. said, he would seize that opportunity of offering the tribute of his sincere thanks for the very instructive, impressive, and eloquent speech which he delivered the other day on the subject of retrenchment and economy. That gentleman's age indicated the wisdom and the history of his past life, the experience with which he could claim to speak and to be heard in this House; and on no occasion, said Mr. W., was he ever more gratified than he was when attending to the sentiments expressed by the gentleman from Massachusetts; with him, Mr. W. thought the time had arrived when we must resume the practice of economy; when we must return to that path of frugality and prudence from which we had most unwisely departed, or persist in a career of extravagance, profusion, and prodigality, as hostile to the nature of our political institutions, as it is repugnant to the individual prosperity and happiness of our fellow-citizens. Mr. W. said, if he could hesitate between these alternatives he should deem himself unfit to occupy a seat on this floor. Not that he would condemn any gentleman who entertains a different opinion. "Tot capitum, totidem millia studiorum," is a maxim, the truth of which is every day displayed in the proceedings of this House. I know well that gentlemen will honestly differ in opinion, not only on this subject, but on every other which may be agitated. But it appears to me that this difference would not be so great, so glaring, so irreconcileable, if we all built our systems of reasoning on a proper basis; if we all started from the same point. Some reason from the Government to the people; while others reason from the people to the Government: some appear to think that the good, or, in other words, that the power and amplitude of the Government should alone be consulted, regardless of the effects which any particular measure might have on the people; but others assert that we should, in the first place, look to the circumstances and condition of the people; that their ease, comfort, and When Mr. S. had concludedhappiness, should be the scope, the end, the object Mr. WILLIAMS said that he concurred with the of all our laws. It is thus we are made to arrive Mr. Chairman, I have already proved, by a few general suggestions, that there is no such necessity for all this, as was supposed to exist. The situation of the Treasury, which gives the greatest spring to a cry for retrenchment, is not so startling, not so alarming, as was at first represented by the head of that department. Moderation, wisdom, and consistency, cry, forbear. Let us not, by our acts, hastily and rashly attack and prostrate the whole policy of former Congresses and of the present Chief Magistrate, which has been to place every part of this rising nation in such an attitude of defence, as is required, not only by the Constitution, but by the loud and solemn warnings of fatal experience. If we break into these institutions of defence, we do vitally assail that wise policy upon which the future fame of the present Executive must rest. JANUARY, 1821. Reduction of the Army. H. OF R. at different conclusions. For his own part, Mr. the necessary establishments of the country are W. said, he would look to the people as the proper about to be broken in upon," &c. But, sir, all basis for all our acts; he would examine the con- this is nothing more than false alarm. It is true, sequences, immediate and remote, likely to result you may take from such persons the salaries they to them from the adoption of every measure which do not earn, and which consequently they do not might be proposed. Those who start from any deserve; but you leave in the pockets of the peoother premises must, in my judgment, always ar- ple the money which is thus saved. And I ask rive at false conclusions. For, sir, who are the again, whether the interest of the people, or of people of this country? The very Constitution Government, does not require that officers that do tells you that they are supreme; that they are the nothing, or next to nothing, should be disbanded? sovereign authority; that all power emanates from I should think it does. But yet these characters them. The President, in his message to Congress swell into factitious importance, and exclaim, at the commencement of the present session, ob- when you are about to disband them, that "you served, "that this Government is founded by, ad- are opposing Government." They seem to think ministered for, and supported by the people." that they are the Government; that their indiWhatever, then, promotes the happiness of the vidual benefit should alone be considered. But, people must conduce, in an equal degree, to bene- sir, I think the people at large are the Govfit the Government, since it was to promote that ernment, and that their good ought to be prohappiness that the Government was founded. On moted, without reference to any particular persons the other hand, whatever injures, afflicts, or dis- whatsoever. tresses the people, must, in the same degree, injure, afflict, or distress the Government, since it was to prevent that injury, affliction, and distress, that the Government was formed. And here, Mr. Chairman, suffer me to correct a very erroneous idea, frequently propagated abroad, and which, much to my surprise, has been reiterated within these walls by the member from South Carolina, (Mr. SIMKINS.) There are, said Mr. W., two courses of policy: one is a course of economy; the other a course of extravagance. The first employs few officers; gives moderate but sufficient salaries, and conducts the whole machinery of Government with the least possible expense. The effect of this is, that every man in the community is either taxed very lightly, or not all. He has of course all the benefits and the richest blessings the social state When an attempt is made to retrench expendi- can afford. He has protection to his person and tures, we hear loud cries raised against those who property; he has an abundance of materials for think proper to advocate the measure. It is said food and raiment, and is never subjected to the that we who favor retrenchment "are opposing severities of cold and hunger. On the other hand, Government," &c. Now, sir, this idea is full of an extravagant course of policy leads to very error; it is false. I do not mean by this to charge different results. There many useless officers, the gentleman from South Carolina with false- with exorbitant salaries, are employed, and the hood; but I mean to say, and I will say, that he machinery of Government cannot be carried on does not rightly judge our motives. No doubt, without large disbursements of public money. sir, the gentleman has more intimate acquaintance The consequence is, that the expenditures surpass with some portion of Executive views than I have. the receipts, and the people must be heavily taxed. But, if this attempt to economise in our expendi- Of course every man in the community finds himtures, and to relieve the burdens of the commu- self distressed for money. His means of subsistnity, should be regarded as an attack on the Exec-ence become scanty; he is compelled, perhaps, to utive Government, or any of its branches, I for one will say, that I cannot help it; that it is my duty to pursue what appears to me most conducive to the public good, without reference to any such extraneous considerations. lie down supperless at night, and to rise in the morning with no better hopes for the ensuing day. Such, sir, are the two courses of policy which this Government may pursue, and which, at different times, it has pursued. Under Mr. Jefferson's Administration economy was the order of the day; but, under another Administration, great extravagance obtained. Suppose, for example, half of the present Army would answer every purpose which this nation could desire. I ask, if an attempt to reduce it would be acting against the people, or, if you The gentleman from South Carolina had said please, against the Government? Not at all; but, that the American people had renounced their on the contrary, it would be promoting the just preference for economy, as pursued in 1802, and ends of Government to reduce the Army, because, had now attached themselves to the policy purby that reduction, our expenditures would be les- sued by Mr. Adams. Mr. W. said he would beg sened, and the happiness of the people would be leave to differ from the gentleman, and would proportionably advanced. There are, indeed, a willingly submit to the decision of the people the set of officers, of sinecure placemen, of political point at issue between himself and the member grasshoppers, warmed and animated into exist- from South Carolina. He was confident the peoence by the sunshine of the Treasury; sustained ple would decide that, under Mr. Jefferson's Adand supported, not by General Atkinson's turnip ministration, they were as free as air; that little patches at Council Bluffs, but by the streams of or nothing of the profits of their labor was taken nourishment which flow from the Treasury, who from them by taxation; that the hand of Govwill, when any attempt is made to reduce expen-ernment was not felt to be upon them, only in the ditures, cry out-"The Government is in danger; protection it afforded them; that swarms of reve16th CoN. 2d SESS.-25 nue officers, of domiciliary visitors, of merciless tax gatherers, were banished from their presence; that every man had wherewith to be clothed and fed, and wherewith to be happy. This was exactly that administration of the Government which the people want; it was such an administration as every one must wish to see in a Government founded by, administered for, and supported by the people. To what other Administration, let me ask the member from South Carolina, can or ought the people to be attached? If, by the course of policy pursued, you conflict with the interest of the citizen, or mar his happiness, is it not unreasonable to suppose he will be attached to that policy? How can any one of common sense admire the policy which tends to strip his body or starve his stomach? As "this Government is founded by, administered for, and supported by, the people," it will be most strong when the people are most attached to it; and the people will be most attached to it when least oppressed by it; in other words, when they are required to contribute, by taxation, as little as possible of their hard earnings to support Govern ment. We hear much about national glory. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. SMITH) has dwelt eloquently on this topic. No one has a greater right than he has to speak on such subjects, because he has participated largely in those scenes which have tended to illustrate and dignify the name of his country. Although I bow with deference to whatever that gentleman may be pleased to say, yet, on this occasion, I must differ from him, not because I admire national glory less, but because I love national happiness more. Of what avail is it to talk about the splendid victories of a Decatur, if, in order to obtain those victories, the people had been obliged, by taxation, to give up so much of their own property as would compel them to go supperless to bed? Indeed, sir, they would be in an ill condition to relish those victories with an empty stomach. But feed them, clothe them, make them, in these respects, contented and happy, which Government can do by the means it employs, or the measures it adopts, and then, with all imaginable zest, they can enter into and realize those fine elevated feelings, inspired by a recollection of our great achievements by sea and land. We have also been referred, said Mr. W., to the glory of other countries, particularly to that of England. No example could be held up to his view which he would imitate with greater caution than that of England. She had paid too dearly for her glory, for her distinction among the nations of the world. To prove this, it would be necessary to advert only to what her people themselves had said; and he would now do so, by asking the attention of the House while he read an extract from the Review of Seybert's Statistical Annals of the United States. The extract is as follows: "We can inform Jonathan what are the inevitable consequences of being too fond of glory. Taxes upon every article which enters into the mouth, or covers the back, or is placed under the foot-taxes upon JANUARY, 1821. every thing which it is pleasant to see, hear, feel, smell, or taste-taxes upon warmth, light, and locomotion-taxes on every thing on earth, and the waters under the earth-on every thing that comes from abroad, or is grown at home-taxes on the raw material-taxes on every fresh value that is added to it by the industry of man-taxes on the sauce which him to health-on the ermine which decorates the pampers man's appetite, and the drug that restores poor man's salt, and the rich man's spice-on the judge, and the rope which hangs the criminal-on the brass nails of the coffin, and the ribands of the brideat bed or board, couchant or levant, we must pay. The school-boy whips his taxed top-the beardless youth manages his taxed horse with a taxed bridle, on a taxed road; and the dying Englishman, pouring his medicine, which has paid 7 per cent., into a spoon which has paid 15 per cent., flings himself back upon his chintz bed which has paid 22 per cent.-making his will on an eight-pound stamp, and expires in the arms of an apothecary who has paid a license of a hundred pounds for the privilege of putting him to His whole property is then immediately large fees are demanded for burying him in the chantaxed from 2 to 10 per cent. Besides the probate, cel; his virtues are handed down to posterity on taxed taxed no more. marble; and he is then gathered to his fathers, to be dealing with large sums will make the Government In addition to all this, the habit of avaricious and profuse; and the system itself will infallibly generate the base vermin of spies and informers, and a still more pestilent race of political tools and retainers of the meanest and most odious description; while the prodigious patronage, which the collecting of this splendid revenue will throw into the hands of Government, will invest it with so vast an influence, and hold out such means and temptations to corruption, as all the virtue and public spirit even of Republicans will be unable to resist." death. This, sir, is what the English themselves say as to the effects of that excessive, that blind but eager pursuit of national glory, in which they have been engaged. Surely, then, it is not a fit example for our imitation. On the contrary, I say, let our glory consist in the happiness of our people; let our freedom from such oppressions as those under which the people of England now labor, be our boast. It is then we shall have obtained true glory; it is then we shall have accomplished the great object for which our Government was instituted. Thus much Mr. W. thought it was necessary to say on the subject of the bill generally, and in reply to the remarks which had fallen from gentlemen. He would not, however, be understood to say, that the extravagant course of policy pursued in Mr. Adams's administration was carried to all those pernicious consequences he had pointed out. He said only, but he said it boldly, that, unless the good sense of the American people had arrested the course, changed the policy, and diverted the tendency of that Administration, we should now be as much oppressed, ceteris paribus, as the people of England. As the voice of the nation could not then, so he hoped it would not now be resisted; and that we should again resume those wholesome habits of economy from which we had departed. He would, therefore, proceed immediately to the consideration of the bill which embraced the principle for which he contended. Propositions of this kind, it would be recollected, said Mr. W., had been before Congress for several years, but as yet they have been unsuccessful. He rejoiced, however, in the belief he had, that now the subject would be thoroughly investigated; that it would receive that full and free examination which its importance, both intrinsic and relative, may demand. For, sir, the amount of a military force and the manner of its support are, in every country, questions of the first importance. But, with us, they deserve infinite consideration, because, in proportion as our Government differs from all others, will these questions be found to rise in magnitude, claiming the attention and vigilance of the American people. So important did Congress believe them to be, at the last session, that a resolution was passed, calling upon the Secretary of War to make a report on the subject at the present session. The report, sir, has been received, and what is its aspect? According to my judgment, it is a practical renunciation of the principles upon which our Government is founded, as well as of the principles inculcated at an early period, by that class of politicians to whom the Secretary has heretofore professed to belong. To prove this, the attention of the House is respectfully solicited, while I read some passages from the report. Page 3, the Secretary says" It will be readily admitted that the organization of the Army ought to have reference to the objects for 'which it is maintained, and ought to be such as 'may be best calculated to effect such objects; as 'it must be obvious, on the slightest reflection, ' that, on considerations connected herewith, ought to depend not only its numbers, but also the 'principles on which it ought to be formed." Again, in the same page, he says, "The objects 'for which a standing army in peace ought to be 'maintained, may be comprised under two classes: 'those which, though they have reference to a state of war, yet are more immediately connect'ed with its duties in peace; and those which re'late immediately and solely to war. Under the 'first class may be enumerated, as the leading objects, the garrisoning the forts along our Atlantic frontier, in order to preserve them, and to cause the sovereignty of the United States to be respected, and the occupying of certain commanding posts in our inland frontier to keep in 'check our savage neighbors, and to protect our newly formed and feeble settlements in that quarter. These are, doubtless, important objects, but are by no means so essential as those which ' relate immediately and solely to a state of war; and, though not to be neglected wholly, ought not to have any decided influence in the organi'zation of our Peace Establishment." From the foregoing, it appears, said Mr. W., to be the opinion of the Secretary, that the duties to be performed by an army in time of peace, ought not to have "any decided influence in the organization of the Peace Establishment." This sentiment, with others which would be noticed hereafter, he deemed a palpable abandonment of the H. OF R. principles of the Government. Whatever he might have previously thought, there was no longer room to entertain a doubt of the fact, since the speeches of the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. SMYTH,) and the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. SIMKINS.) The first of these gentlemen, from his official station in this House, as Chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs, must be supposed to be intimately acquainted with the views and sentiments entertained by the head of the War Department. Whether the latter gentleman has had access to the same source of information was for the House to determine. Both gentlemen, pursuing what I had believed was the opinion of the Secretary, have discarded the militia as a means of defence for this country. The gentleman from Virginia, in particular, entered into a series of reasoning founded upon what he was pleased to call historical facts, to prove that the militia force was not worthy to be relied on. Mr. W. said he also would rely on history to prove not only that the militia were to be depended on, but that they were the only sort of force to which this Government could safely trust. It was not, indeed, history, in the simple acceptation of the term, such as the member from Virginia had produced, but it was of a higher and more authoritative character. It was not history, written by one individual, containing only the opinions of that individual, and that opinion, too, fraught with all the prejudices of him who expressed it, but it was constitutional history, pronounced by the patriots and sages of the country assembled for the all-important purpose of creating and establishing Governments for the several States in this wide-spread Republic. Examine this history from the earliest periods to the present moment-from the constitution of Massachusetts down to the constitution of Missouri, and the same great fundamental truths are seen to pervade the whole; they are these: "That standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be allowed; that a well-regulated militia are the only sure and certain defence of a free people." Gentlemen on the other side may give what force and effect they please to their history, but we will rely on constitutional history, which is more solemn, and entitled to infinitely greater weight than any authority they can possibly produce. From it, I hope we shall be able to point out the dangers we are likely to incur or should labor to avoid. In reply to the gentlemen espousing the opposite side in this debate, Mr. W. said, he would endeavor to show, in the language and spirit of that constitutional history to which he had referred, first, that standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be allowed; second, "that the militia are the only sure and certain defence of a free people;" that the Army of this country is unnecessarily large at present, and should therefore be reduced. A government, like an individual person, has certain principles or laws impressed on it at its creation, which are natural to it in every stage of its existence, and from which it can never depart, but at the risk of consequences always hazardous, H. OF R. Reduction of the Army. JANUARY, 1821. with the small portion of liberty she enjoys, that it is called "in reality not a law, but something indulged rather than allowed as a law." If an army and its rules be thus dangerous to British liberty, how much more so are they to the liberty of Ainerican citizens? As citizens we boast of our equality; but in vain do you look for it in the army. Here are all those distinctions of rankall that slavish submission to the will of a superior which are to be seen in the most absolute governments. If an inferior officer or soldier strikes his superior, the punishment of death is inflicted as the necessary, the only adequate atonement. Monstrous indeed is the punishment for so trivial an offence! The Grand Sultan of Turkey, who vain if not utterly destructive. Nature dictates to man, in his individual capacity, the love of truth and justice, and if he ever disregards the impulse of that sentiment he will incur certain evil. In like manner, whatever appears to be the natural dictate of a government, should be carefully discerned and scrupulously obeyed; for, if not, the body politic will become disorganized, and rendered the subject of every dangerous infection. It would not do for a monarchy to practise upon the principles of a republican government, nor, on the other hand, for a republic to practise upon the principles of monarchy. These two governments are opposites in the various systems of polity, and should go on in the separate spheres in which they have been destined to move. It would be as rational to expect the re-gloriously styles himself the "Shadow of God-a peated occurrence of strange anomalies in nature, God on earth-brother to the sun and moon-disas to suppose that a republic could occasionally poser of all earthly crowns," could not support his dart into the sphere of monarchy and still preserve imaginary greatness with more tremendous exacits blessings in all their pristine excellence. If, there- tions, with more awful penalties. As citizens we fore, in the course or revolutions of republican also boast of our liberty; but, as soldiers, a long government, it is ever found to be erratic; if it ascent of ranks and grades rises before us; the is seen to deviate from those laws impressed on it command of each is a law, and to disobey is to by the mighty hand of the people who created it; forfeit our lives. I know well, said Mr. W., the if it courts conjunction with, or solicits indulgence excuse which is generally offered for the continuin the costly, the expensive trappings and appen-ance of these inexorable rules. It was commonly dages of monarchy, then I pronounce the time has arrived for arresting its progress and reforming its example. said they are founded upon necessity, but he hoped he should be able to show how dangerous it was to suffer any system founded upon such necessity to exist in a great or unreasonable degree. Of all the principles connatural with the people of these United States, impressed upon them at That the military life will corrupt the feelings their political creation, none appears more impor- and habits of those who were engaged in it was, tant, or announced with more solemnity than this Mr. W. thought, also evident. Suppose two char-"that standing armies are dangerous to the lib-acters, A and B, have acted in the army for ten erties of a free people, and ought not to be allow-years-A in the capacity of an officer, B in that ed." This truth is distinctly written in constitu- of a soldier; that, after their term of service had tions formed contemporaneously with the birth day expired, they both return to the walks of civil life. of our independence, as well as in those ordained Now, I ask whether these two characters will asand established at different periods. But it is par-sociate together upon the terms of their original ticularly the saying of our ancestors of the fathers footing of equality as citizens, or whether they will of the freedom and independence of their country. not be more likely, from their feelings and habits, Throughout their works you find the same cau- to preserve that distinctive condition of officer and tious concern, the same jealous solicitude about soldier in which they had been recently placed on the fatal effects resulting from an overgrown, a the Military Establishment. My word for it, the redundant, and an inactive army in time of peace. latter condition will obtain. For no matter how Let me ask if their imaginations were distemper- well disposed, how zealously devoted to the cause ed; if they were alarmed at an airy phantom; or of liberty and equality, a person might have been whether they did not speak the language of sober-before he had become the subject of military disness and truth, teaching their posterity how to avoid dangers, certain, real, and extremely formidable? The latter conclusion must be adopted, and we should receive these Constitutional provisions, the arguments of gentlemen to the contrary notwithstanding, as so many credenda in the articles of our political faith. cipline, yet, after being inured to it for a while, he will be attached to it; he will forget the blessings which attend the condition of a citizen, or, being himself deprived of those blessings, he will be envious that no others should be permitted to enjoy them. Hence it is that standing armies have always been dangerous to liberty throughout the world. In despotic governments, it is true, there is no difference between the condition of a common subject and that of a soldier; both are equally doomed to the scourge of tyranny, in which perhaps both may delight; nothing is to be gained by a change, which perhaps they are unable to contrive or accomplish. But, in our free country, persons habituated to military life become, as officers, on the one hand, domineering and intolerant, and, as soldiers, on the Yes, sir, the champions of our independence and our rights knew well that the laws and rules of an army were, in fact, the laws and rules of absolute despotism; that an army was dangerous to our civil and political institutions, not only on account of its physical force, but also on account of its moral effects, its contaminating influence over our principles, feelings, and habits. In England, the country from which in order to be separated America lavished so prodigiously of her blood and trea-other, servile and dependent. sure, martial law is considered so much at variance In short, sir, our army is subject to the same sort |
