Clay, Cochran, Clopton, Condit, Crawford, Davis, Dawson, Desha, Dinsmoor, Earle, Emolt, Findley, Fisk, Franklin, Gholson. Gold. Green, Grundy, B Hall, 0. Hall, Harper, Hawes, Hyneman, Johnson, Kent, King, Lacock, Lefevre, Little, Livingston, Lowndes, Lyle, Maxwell, Moore. M'Coy. M'Kee, M'Kim, Metcalf, Milnor, Mitchell, Morgan, Morrow, Nelson, New, Newton, Ormsby, Paulding, Pickens, Piper, Pond, Porter, Quincy. Reed. Ringgold, Rhea, Roane, Roberts. Sage, Sammons, beaver, Sevier, Seybert, Shaw, G Smith, J Smith, Strong, Sullivan, Tallman, Talliaferro, Tracy, Troup, Turner, Van Cortlandt, Williams, Bassett, Widgery, Winn, Wright.--94

"Nays-Messrs. Bigelow, Boyd, Breckenridge, Brigham, Champion. Chittenden, Davenport, Ely, Fitch, Hufty, Jackson, Key Law Lenis, Macon. M'Bryde, Mosely, Newbold. Pearson, Pitkin, Potter, Randolph, Rodman, Sheffey, Smilie Stanford, Stewart, Stow, Sturges, Taggart, Tallmadge, Wheaton, White, Wilson.

34.

January 20, 1812. "The engrossed bill concerning the naval establishment was read the third time and passed. The yeas and nays on its passage were as follows.

"Yeas-Messrs Alston, Anderson, Bassett, Blackledge, Breckenridge, Burwell, Butler, Calhoun, Cheeves, Chittenden, Condit, Davenport, Davis, Dinsmoor, Ely, Emott, Findley, Fisk, Fitch, Franklin, Gholson, Goodwin, Green, Harper, Hawes, Hyneman, King, Little, Livingston, Lowndes, Maxwell, Moore, M'Bryde. M'Coy, M'Kim, Milnor, Mitchell, Nelson, Newton, Pitkin, Pleasants, Pond, Potter, Richardson, Ringgold, Rhea, Seybert, Sheffey, G. Smith, J. Smith, Stewart, Stow, Sturges, Taggart, Talliaferro, Tracy, Troup, Turner, Van. Cortlandt, Wheaton, White, Wilson, Wiun, Wright.-65.

66

Nays-Messrs. Bacon, Bibb, Boyd, Brown, Cochran. Crawford, Desha, O. Hall, Hufty, Johnson, Lacock, Lyle, Macon, M'Kee, Metcalf, Morgan, New, Newbold Piper, Roane, Roberts, Rodman, Sage, Seaver, Shaw, Smilie, Stanford, Strong, Mitchell, Williams-38.

February 19, 1812.

The engrossed bill for authorising a loan for eleven millions of dollars, was read the third time, and the question was put, "shall the bill pass its third read: ing."

"Yeas-Messrs. Alston, Anderson, Archer, Bacon, Bard, Bassett, Bibb, Bleecker, Boyd, Brown, Burwell, Butler, Calhoun, Cheeves, Clay, Cochran, Condit, Crawford, Davis, Dawson, Desha, Dinsmoor, Eari, Emott, Findley, Fisk, Franklin, Gholson, Gold, Goodwyn, Green, Grundy, B. Hall, O. Hall, Harper, Hawes, Hufty, Johnson, Kent, King, Lacock, Lefevre, Little, Livingston, Lowndes, Lyle, Macon, Maxwell, Moore, M'Coy, M'Kim, Metcalf, Mitchell, Morgan, Morrow, Nelson, New, Newbold, Newton, Ormsby, Pickens, Piper, Pleasants, Pond, Porter, Potter, Quincy, Reed, Richardson, Ringgold, Rhea, Roane, Roberts, Sage, Sammons, Seaver, Sevier, Seybert, Shaw, Smilie, G. Smith, J. Smith, Stow, Stroog, Tracy, Troup, Turner, Van Cortlandt, Whitehill, Widgery, Winn, Wright.-92.

Nays-Messrs Baker, Bigelow, Breckenridge, Brigham, Champion, Chittenden, Davenport, Fitch, Goldsborough, Gray, Jackson, Law, Lewis, Minor, Mosely Pearson, Pitkin, Randolph, Ridgely, Rodman, Sheffey, Stewart, Sturges, Taggard, Tallmadge, Wheaton, White, Wilson.-29.

I hope the reader has fully examined those dry lists, and has his mind prepared for the reflections I have to submit upon them.

No man will deny that a public functionary who acts with gross and manifest inconsistency in his political career, espe

cially, in matters of the highest possible importance to his constituents, forfeits their confidence. Of course it is extremely dangerous to submit to his guidance.

The war was either just or unjust.

Every man who believed it unjust, and who voted for a series of measures leading to it, betrayed his trust.

Every man who voted for the measures leading to war; who opposed it after it was declared; and who, as far as in his power, thwarted the measures adopted to carry it on, was guilty of a gross, manifest, and palpable inconsistency—and in either one or other course betrayed his trust.

That these positions are correct, cannot be denied. I proceed to apply them-and shall single out an individual, to make the case more striking.

Josiah Quincy voted, as we have seen, for a set of measures, all predicated upon an approaching war. He voted for the loan to raise the money necessary to give effect to those measures. He, and forty-eight other members, who had generally voted with him for all these preparatory measures, voted against the war itself. And further, they did not merely vote against the war, but

thirty-four of them published a most inflammatory protest, ad dressed to their constituents, to excite them to oppose it. This protest, and other violent measures, were, fatally, but too successful.

I annex the names of the protestors.

Messrs. Brigham, Bigelow, M'Bride, Breckenridge, Baker, Bleecker, Champi en, Chittenden, Davenport, Emott, Ely, Fitch, Gold, Goldsborough, Jackson, Key, Lewis. Law, Mosely, Milnor, Potter, Pearson, Pitkin, Quincy, Reed, Ridgely, Sullivan, Stewart, Sturges, Tallmadge, Taggart, White, Wilson, Whea ton.

I aver that the whole of the annals of legislation, from the first organization of deliberative bodies to this hour, cannot produce a more sinister, dark, or mysterious policy. These gentlemen, particularly Mr.Quincy, who has been so conspicuous in his opposition to the war, are most solemnly cited before the bar of the public, and called upon to explain the motives of their conduct to that country, which was brought to the jaws of perdition by the opposition they excited against a war which they Countenanced in almost every stage but the last.

CHAPTER XLII.

Declaration of war. Violently opposed.

Ar length, on the 18th of June, 1812, war was declared against England, in due form, after a session of above seven months, and the most ardent debates. The final vote was carried in the senate by 19 to 13-and in the house of representatives by 79 to 49-affirmatives in both houses, 98-negatives, 62-that is, more than three to two, in both houses united.

War then became the law of the land. It was the paramount duty of all good citizens to submit to it. Even those who doubted its justice or expediency, and who had opposed its adoption, were bound to acquiesce; for the first principle of all republican government-and of all government founded on reason and justice, is, that the will of the majority, fairly and constitutionally expressed, is to be the supreme law. To that the minority is sacredly bound to submit. Any other doctrine is jacobinical, and disorganising, and seditious, and has a direct tendency to overthrow all government, and introduce anarchy and civil war. If it were lawful for the minority, in the unparalleled way they did, to oppose or paralise the government, and defeat its measures, on the pretext that they were unjust, such pretexts can never be wanting. And I aver that it would be full as just, as righteous, as legal, and as constitutional, for Mr. Holmes, at the head of the minority in Massachusetts, to besiege governor Strong in his house, and coerce him to retire from office, as it was for the Kings, the Websters, the Hansons, and the Gores, to besiege president Madison at Washington.

While the federalists held the reins of government, they inculcated these maxims with great energy and effect. The least opposition to law excited their utmost indignation and abhorrence. The vocabulary of vituperation was exhausted to brand it and its perpetrators with infamy. But to enforce rules that operate to our advantage, when we have power, and to submit to those rules, when they operate against us, are widely different things. And the federalists, as I have already remarked, abandoned, when in the minority, the wise and salutary maxims of political economy which they had so eloquently preached when they were the majority.

And they were not satisfied with mere preaching. They had occasional recourse to violence. A band of Philadelphia volunteers, during the western insurrection, seized a printer at

Reading by force and violence in his house, and scourged him in the market-place for a libel, not the twentieth part as viru lent as those that are daily published at present with impu nity.

War is undoubtedly a tremendous evil. It can never be suf ficiently deplored. It ought to be avoided by all honorable means. But there are situations which present greater evils than war as an alternative. I believe this nation was precisely in that situation. We had borne almost every species of outrage, insult, and depredation. And the uniform voice of history proves that such base submission of nations to the atrocities perpetrated upon us, inevitably produces a loss of national character, as well as of the respect and esteem of other nations-and invites to further outrages and depredation, till the alternative finally becomes a loss of independence, or resistance with means and confidence impaired.

The questions respecting the late war with Great Britain are, whether it was warranted by the conduct of that nation-and whether, after having been duly declared by the constituted authorities, it was not the incumbent duty of the whole nation to have united in their support of it. The first of these questions is of so much importance, that I shall devote to it the 44th chapter entire. I have already sufficiently discussed the second in the beginning of the present chapter.

From the hour of the declaration of war, a steady, systemati cal, and energetical opposition was regularly organised against it. The measure itself, and its authors and abettors, were denounced with the utmost virulence and intemperance. The war was at first opposed almost altogether on the ground of inexpediency and the want of preparation. Afterwards its opposers rose in their denunciations. They asserted that it was unholy-wicked-base-perfidious-unjust-cruel-and corrupt. Every man that in any degree co-operated in it, or gave aid to carry it on-was loaded with execration. It has been recently pronounced in one of our daily papers to be "the most wicked and unjust war that ever was waged." The disregard of truth and of the moral sense of the reader, which such a declaration betrays, is calculated to excite the utmost astonishment. Can this war for an instant be compared to the atrocious and perfidious war waged by Bonaparte against Spain-to the treacherous war of England against Denmark, begun by a most lawless and unprecedented attack upon the shipping and capi tal of an unoffending neutral? I pass over thousands of other instances.

CHAPTER XLIII.

Peace party. Composed of warlike materials. Repeated clamor for war.

IMMEDIATELY after the declaration of war, there was a party formed called the "Peace Party," which combined nearly the whole of the federalists throughout the union, Their object was to expose the war-the administration-the congress who declared it-and all who supported it, to reprobation-and to force the government to make peace.

This party embraced various descriptions of persons, all enlisted under the banners of federalism, whom it may not be improper to enumerate.

First, those who were clamorous for war with England in 1793, for her depredations on our commerce.

Secondly, those who declared and supported the war against France in 1798.

Thirdly, those who were vociferous for war against Spain in 1803, when she interdicted us from the right of deposit at NewOrleans.

Fourthly, those who in 1805-6, urged the government to resist the aggressions of England, and to make the alternativeredress of wrongs or WAR.

Fifthly, those who after the attack upon the Chesapeake in 1807, were clamorous for war, as the only mode in which satisfaction could be had for such an outrageous insult.

To enable the reader to make a fair comparison of the several degrees of complaint at these several periods of time, I annex a synoptical view of them.