iS-i^ifiiitiiliil.. , 
 
 ilMsiiilEiii:?^' 
 
 E357 
 

 
 
 ^^\c:;^-/'\. " C<>^.'J«:^%^°o "'.•^^''.: 
 
 
 
 ,r,'^^.r>. 
 
 1 
 
 
 I 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 #. '^.'fi^ 
 
 
 -<m 
 
 
 'o > 
 
 ^^-n^. 
 
 e 
 
 O*. "^^tt 
 
 ^/ 
 
 
/"y^j^k-x co*.i^^.*°o y\.i:^.\ '°* 
 
 ,9- 
 
 ,0^ 
 
 V ^'^ffl^^^'. '-^^^^ oV'^^lBk'- ^^v> "^^^M^n:. '-^^0^ <»''= 
 
 VAO^ 
 
 
 • Ay 
 
 
 l" <*o <i» » fliJili^l • ^ ,j»r j».^ 
 
 
 i^'* **> 
 
 
 /^>^'\ ^°^^<>- -x/^yi^'"-^- ^° 
 
 '■■■ J'\...\''^' ^-^^ 
 
 o " " » "^ A^ 
 
 
 
. f. 
 
 
 ON THE 
 
 
 BY AN AMERICAN. 
 
 Ceterum libertas, et speciosa nomlna prjetexuntur : nee quisquam 
 alieiuim servitium, et dominationem sibi concupivit, ut non ea- 
 dem ista vocabula iisurparet. Tacit. Hint. iv. 73. 
 
 FIRST PUBLISHED IN THE BOSTON PATRIOI 
 
 BOSTON : 
 
 PRINTED AT THE PATRIOT OFFICE. 
 
 1814. 
 

 /- 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The subjects discussed in the following pages will, 
 perhaps, appear to some persons trifling and unw^orthy 
 of attention. We have been informed by one of the 
 most respectable of our American political winters, 
 that " it is truly delightful to escape by any means 
 from the benumbing and humiliating consideration of 
 our domestic politics ;" and that *^one feels as it were 
 enfranchised and enlarged, when communing with a 
 friend, not about Webster's resolutions or Monroe's 
 report, but concerning the affairs of those weighty 
 empires, whose struggles, besides having much in- 
 trinsic dignity and interest, seem to involve in the end 
 our own fortunes."* 
 
 If persons of this opinion merely meant that there are 
 in the world more important subjects of consideration 
 than any points of political or national controversy, 
 there would be no great harm in admitting the justness 
 of their doctrine. It might be easily allowed, that the 
 nature and destiny of man, the constitution of his 
 powers and faculties, the grounds of his rights and 
 duties, his prospects of present and future happiness, 
 and the means of realizing them, with various other 
 high branches of philosophy, are of more intrinsic and 
 
 * Walsh's Correspondence on Russia, p»,60. 
 
IV 
 
 durable importance than the causes and conduct of any 
 political contention. It would be even readily admit- 
 ted, that it is a pleasanter task to investigate at large 
 the principles of politics, to inquire into the origin and 
 construction of states, to fatliom the secret springs 
 that regulate the political machine, than to consider 
 the best method of applying these high principles to 
 any case of practical politics. No cultivated mind 
 perhaps, but would find more enjoyment in following 
 out doctrines with Plato and Machiavelli, than in ap- 
 plying them to practice with Monroe and Webster. 
 Admitting this however in its full extent, it must still 
 be said, " This should you have done, and not have 
 left the other undone." After all, the real use of the- 
 ory is to control and regulate the practice of life. It 
 was not till Cicero had spent a long life in the active 
 service of his country and at last saw reason to despair 
 of the Commonwealth, that he set himself about the 
 investigation of moral and political truth. His treat- 
 ises on laws, duties, and the republic, were not the 
 business of his life, but the recreation of his age. The 
 thunder of his manly eloquence was heard in the Fo- 
 rum, and he only resorted to the shady bowers and 
 green allies of the Academy to sooth the faintness of 
 his declining days. 
 
 But the question seems to be, not whether any sub- 
 ject of consideration is more interesting than political 
 matters ; but whether the concerns of our own country 
 are more important to us, than those of the nations of 
 Europe. For the writer, who turns with disgust from 
 the disputes that agitate the American people — with 
 whom Monroe and AVebster — Republican and Fe- 
 deralist — Tros, Tyrhisve — arc alike objects of the 
 
same superior indiifcreiice — can yet dwell with no 
 small complacency on tlie quarrels of the statesmen 
 and Avarriors of the ancient continent. AVith him the 
 importance and magnitude of a contest seems to de- 
 pend on the number of men engaged on either side^, 
 and the dignity of the scene to be not a little aug- 
 mented by the presence of a large number of crowned 
 heads and starry habits. 
 
 The politics of Europe are, indeed, an object of the 
 highest interest to the American statesman. It is a 
 singular and most propitious circumstance for our 
 country, that the mother continent not only unfolds to 
 us the page of history and philosophy to enlighten our 
 judgments on the theory of national concerns by the 
 experience and wisdom of ages, but exhibits to us a 
 grand and continually varying succession of moral 
 and political experiments, by which we are enabled 
 to limit, define, and correct our principles ; to ascertain 
 how much of what is true is practicable, and how 
 much of what is practicable is advantageous. Europe 
 is to us a theatre, where v/e may see in prospect tlie 
 issue of every possiJAe system of measures, that 
 can be adopted. Hardly any course of policy, tliat 
 has not there been tested ; hardly any motive or prin- 
 ciple, whose operation cannot there be traced to its 
 ultimate and permanent effects. By looking at Europe, 
 we may learn to check and moderate our prevailing 
 opinions. Does the tide of popular favour in its fre- 
 quent fluctuation ever incline to the concentration of 
 power ? Look at the old world converted for ages into 
 a slaughter-house, by the passious of kings and em- 
 perors. Are we reminded of the ^'sacred duty of 
 insurrection," of rights infringed, and constitutions vi- 
 
Vl 
 
 olated ? Look at France, driven to madness by the 
 cnrsed enchantment of these potent names, and only 
 strait- waistcoated by military despotism into the sem- 
 blance of quiet. 
 
 The old world then is to us an instructive spectacle ; 
 but like every other spectacle, its uses must be made 
 subordinate to the more serious purposes of life. Wc 
 insist the more on this, because the contrary opinion 
 is one of the worst symptoms, that can shew itself in a 
 government like ours. It argues an indifference, a 
 contempt for American objects and interests ; and in- 
 difference and contempt are fatal sentiments in a gov- 
 ernment, that reposes for its basis on love of country. 
 If the subject were not rather too serious, we would 
 recommend to minds of such a stamp the apologue of 
 the astrologer that tumbled into a well : an unpleas- 
 ant event, which, as we are told by La Fontaine, not 
 only convinced him of the folly of his profession, but 
 admonished him of the expediency of settling his own 
 affairs before he interfered with the business of the 
 stars. 
 
 The above remarks may be considered in the light 
 of an apology for the following pages ; for we would 
 not willingly be thought to have made even this tri- 
 fling effort, on a subject altogether unworthy the atten- 
 tion of a wise man. It is our object to prove, that the 
 efforts now making to excite an insurrection in New- 
 England, are not made with "the view of removing 
 those pretended grievances, that are held out as the 
 ostensible justification, but in the intention to effect a 
 separation of the States. If the question were entirely 
 new to the public, the argument would divide itself 
 into two parts. It would be necesrsavy, first, to prove 
 
Vll 
 
 that tlic ostensible grounds of resistance are not the 
 real objects of the leaders, and then tliat this oliject is 
 a separation. But such is the state of things at pres- 
 ent, that the second of these points no longer requires 
 a formal argument in its support. The project of 
 separation is openly avowed. The Newspapers are 
 full of it. Tlie Senate chamber and the House of 
 Representatives have rung with this treasonable note. 
 It is even intimated in the Governor's speech. No 
 veil is now drawn over it, but the flimsy disguise that 
 it is sought as a means by which to obtain relief from 
 oppression, and not as an end desirable for its own 
 sake. 
 
 In this state of the argument, therefore, it is only 
 necessary to prove, tliat the grievances complained of 
 do not exist or are grossly exaggerated, and the point 
 is established. For since the project of separation, 
 so often denied and concealed is now avowed, it is 
 only required to shew the fallacy of the pretences 
 brought forward to justify it, and it then stands in its 
 naked deformity, as the object which it is really in- 
 tended to effect. These pretences are the common 
 grounds of complaint, that are brought against the 
 Government, such as the injustice and inexpediency 
 of the war, the embargo, and French influence. We 
 have, therefore, confl^ned our observations principally 
 to these topics ; and having, as far as lay in our pow- 
 er, proved the futility of these accusations, we have 
 considered ourselves authorized to draw the conclu- 
 sion, which has just been said to follow. It is obvi- 
 ous that this conclusion is made still more probable. 
 If it can be shown that the project of separation was 
 entertained before any or either of the present gricv-. 
 
VUl 
 
 auces were complained of. Wc have adduced in sup- 
 port of tliis point some evidence which happened to 
 be in our possession, and which we presume will give 
 it a high degree of probability. 
 
 As we have not entered into any laboured train 
 of reasoning to prove the existence of a project of sep- 
 aration, which is not concealed, so we have not thought 
 it necessary to undertake a formal exposition of the 
 advantages of union, which we consider self-evident. 
 Union is like female chastity. It must not be called 
 in question. When we find it necessary to prove its 
 value, the substance is gone. If any candid man, 
 however, entertains doubts on the subject, we can but 
 refer him to tiie discussions on this subject in the Fed- 
 eralist, and to the prophetic warnings of our political 
 father — we can but tell him to compare the situation 
 of the United States, since the union was established 
 by the constitution and before — -we can but set before 
 him the glass of history and bid him track the progress 
 of disunion through the long course of ages, from cen- 
 tury to century, by her footsteps of desolation and 
 blood. But no, it is not necessary. The blessings of 
 union flash upon the mind like sunbeams on the eye. 
 It is the air we breathe, and the light that cheers and 
 supports us ; it flourishes and blossoms in our fields, 
 and swells and v/hitens with our canvass on every 
 ocean ; it smiles upon us in our seats of learning, and 
 piety, and charity ; we hear its voice in the cheerful 
 bustle of our workmen and manufacturers ; in the elo- 
 quence of out" orators and statesmen ; it is the soul of 
 our world, the lively spirit that gives animation, and 
 fulness, and vigor to our political system : and is it not 
 melancholy, that rational men for the paltry gratifica 
 
IX 
 
 lion of filling the first offices in a section of the country, 
 should wish to disturb all this heavenly harmony, this 
 music of the spheres, and cut oft' with one irreparable 
 wanton stroke, the silver cord that binds our republic 
 in unity ? 
 
 Quantos turn g'enitiis ipsi sibi, quantaque nobis 
 Volnera, quas lachrymas peperere minoribu, nostris. 
 
 They tell us indeed that there is no magic in tlie 
 word union. It is, alas ! but too true. The work of 
 destruction is easier than that of creation. It is with 
 the body politic as with the human frame. Man, the 
 wonder of the world, the paragon of animals, is after 
 all but a compound of perishable materials ; a bundle 
 of bones, and muscles, and nerves, and veins. He 
 stands to be sure in his place, the master of this lower 
 earth, and his curiously organized and compacted sys- 
 tem is the residence of a heavenly spirit, but there is 
 still no magic in the name of Z(fe, or if there be, it is a 
 spell that may be unbound by a bodkin. But when 
 the spell is gone, and you have satisfied yourself that 
 life may be destroyed, you have for your consolation 
 darkness, and silence, and death, instead of reason, 
 and light, and happiness. So it is with the union. 
 Destroy it you can, but to reproduce it is beyond your 
 power ; and the work of destruction once accomplish- 
 ed, you will have to reflect with what satisfaction you 
 may, that you have torn away from yourselves, and 
 your sons, and the long line of your posterity, a bless- 
 ing, which no art, or chance, or lapse of ages is com- 
 petent to restore. 
 
 Such being the object of the following pages, it will 
 be perceived that the form, which they assume, is ac- 
 cidental : they are in no other sense a criticism on the 
 2 
 
X 
 
 CTTOvernors speech, than as that speech is an exposition 
 of the doctrines wc oppose. It was hoped that the 
 little practical good they could be expected to effect, 
 would be produced more readily by this form than by 
 any other. In examining the points in controversy 
 between Great-Britain and the United States, we have 
 forborne to say any thing on the subject of expatria- 
 tion. The discussion is long, and intricate, and diffi- 
 cult ; and we sincerely hope and believe that the ques- 
 tion of peace or war will never turn on this point. 
 And though we fully agree with the Grovernment, as to 
 the right of expatriation, we should be sorry to see it 
 defended by retaliatory slaughter. " Let us leave the 
 Tarentines their angry Gods," said the Roman Fa- 
 bius, when he was consulted about the plunder of that 
 city. Let no principle of retaliation induce America 
 to borrow the scalping knife of an Aboriginal, or th« 
 criminal code of an Englishman. 
 
 It is however not the least of the many absurdities 
 continually brought forward by the movers of insurrec- 
 fion, that one of their principal arguments in favor of 
 throwing off allegiance is that the subject has no right 
 to throw off allegiance in any case whatever. They 
 threaten to rebel against the Government for contend- 
 ing that tlie citizen has in certain cases a riglit to re- 
 bel ; for most certainly the right to rebel includes the 
 minor right to withdraw, and the citizen must be his 
 own judge in one case as well as in the other. Thus 
 they reduce themselves to a most perplexing dilemma, 
 for if they are right in their doctrine, then they are 
 wrong in their practice, because they have then on their 
 own principles no right of resistance in any case what- 
 soever ; and if they are wrong in their doctrine, and 
 
XI 
 
 Veally have a right to resist; then the Government are 
 right, and they of course are in the wrong in opposing 
 them. Another specimen of accuracy of reasoning on 
 the suhject of allegiance may be found in the Hon. 
 ]Vlr. Quincy's Address to the Washington Benevolent 
 Society, in which he informs that body, that the right 
 of the Government of Massachusetts to claim obedience 
 from the people is divine, unalienable, inherent and 
 perfect, on a par with the divine right ascribed by 
 Paley to kins;s and constables; but that our allegiance, 
 to the United States is only secondary and imperfect, 
 notwithstanding an unlucky clause in the constitution, 
 by which we agree that that instrument and the laws 
 of the United States shall be the supreme law of the 
 land, any thing in the constitution or laws of any State 
 to the contrary notwithstanding. It was observed by 
 Johnson of the dispute between Milton and Salmasius, 
 that when political discussions are committed to gram- 
 marians, the rights of nations degenerate into questions 
 of syntax ; but we seem to be denied even this poor 
 privilege of professional justice. Our constitutions 
 cannot obtain, even in the hands of lawyers, a legal 
 construction. 
 
 The wi'iter of these remarks could hardly have 
 thought them of sufficient importance to procure him 
 the tribute of personal abuse. But while they were 
 publishing in the 15oston Patriot, his motives were 
 assailed in some articles in a daily paper, written, 
 by some person, who, if he knew the writer, as he 
 seemed to intimate, should have known him better. 
 He is not however very solicitous about the opinion 
 which that gentleman may entertain of him, while he 
 knows, that these whose friendsliip he values, and 
 
xu 
 
 whose judgment he prizes, will do justice to his in- 
 tentions, whether they differ from, or agree with him 
 in sentiment. They know the school in which he was 
 educated, and to them he may be permitted to say 
 with Corneilles Nicomede. 
 
 Le maitr*, qui prit soin d' instruire ma jeunessej 
 Ne m' a jamais appris a faire une bassesse. 
 
REMARKS 
 ON THE GOVERNOR'S SPEECH, No. 1. 
 
 The surest way to make a man or body of men anx- 
 ious about any object is to place it beyond their reach. 
 In the distribution of powers that was made at the ar- 
 rangement of the Federal Government, the department 
 of national politics was confided to the General Con- 
 gress. The several States were relieved of a burden 
 and were left to manage uninterruptedly their particu- 
 lar concerns. When we consider that the whole aim 
 of the former department is to avoid evil and danger, 
 and to confirm to the citizens that negative blessing, not 
 be deprived of such enjoyments and goods as fall 
 within their reach, and that to the latter belong all 
 positive institutions for the promotion of justice, reli- 
 gion, science, and charity, the individual States, it 
 would seem, would have business enough to employ 
 them without intruding on the province of the Gen- 
 eral Government. But no sooner have they placed 
 without their immediate direction, this portion of their 
 interests, than it becomes the all-important object, that 
 absorbs and swallows up every other consideration. 
 How blessings brighten as they take their flight, says 
 a poet, and we may add, how many things by taking 
 fliglht become blessings, that were thouglit very trouble- 
 sottie while we had them. 
 
14 
 
 In pursuance of this principle we regularly find that 
 jQO sooner does a State Legislature commence its ses- 
 sion, than the Governor sends them a message, not about 
 the internal business of the State, about the mischiefs 
 to be redressed, or if happily there are none, about 
 the improvement of morals, arts and manners ; he does 
 not tell them of universities to be encouraged, of 
 schools to be established, of manufactories to be pro- 
 moted ; he forgets to direct their eye to our internal 
 navigation and intercourse, that languishes for want 
 of Legislative aid ; we hear nothing for or against the 
 claims of numerous citizens that are groaning under 
 accumulated debts ; but after informing them that the 
 coroners ought to give new security, and that he has 
 received from the Secretary at War, the arms, which 
 he had previously refused to employ, he fastens at 
 once upon the very subject with which of all others he 
 had no concern, and institutes an inquiry into the con- 
 duct of the General Government. The Houses imitate 
 this brilliant example : they take up with a laudable 
 docility the thread of his Excellency's argument, and 
 continue the inquiry into the conduct of the General 
 Government. The contagion spreads, and as the Le- 
 gislature received their message from the Governor, 
 our country towns receive their messages from the 
 Legislature, and echo them with new inquiries into 
 the conduct of the General Government. Now how- 
 ever honest and well-meaniug may be our brethren in 
 the country ; however sage and eloquent the members 
 of our Legislature ; however venerable and patriotic 
 our Chief Magistrate ; and however competent each 
 and all of them may be to arrange the concerns of this 
 or any other nation ; it seems not a little singular that 
 
id 
 
 they should think propel* to exercise their talents pre- 
 cisely on the individual subject which they with a 
 sober deliberate choice committed to the conduct of a 
 different body. 
 
 A pretty body of public law might be collected from 
 these legislative addresses and answers. We met not 
 long since with a speech, delivered to the General 
 Court some ten years since by our present Governor, 
 in which he entered somewhat largely into the invest- 
 igation of the origin of Government, the rights of man 
 and the theory of society. The abuse of the terms 
 liberty and equality was rather severely reprobated, 
 and it was more than insinuated that obedience to 
 Government was not only a principal duty but really 
 for the best interests of the citizen. These notions 
 are now so old-fashioned that we can hardly conceive 
 how they could have been sanctioned so lately by such 
 a high authority ; but the Governor is not one of those 
 that are ignorant in spite of experience ; and if he has 
 fallen into an error he is w illing to acknowledge it. 
 He has since become a convert to other opinions, and 
 his present system is the sovereignty of the people, 
 the rights of man, the sacred duty of insurrection ; and 
 we cannot but admire the liberal candor that does not 
 shrink from putting his present ideas in direct oppo- 
 sition to his former ones, by adop'ing the same vehicle 
 for conveying them — a speech to the Legislature. 
 
 The speech of last year was one of the longest and 
 most elaborate, that we recollect to have met with. 
 It was issued pretty soon after the Prince Regent's 
 manifesto was received in this country, and was of 
 nearly the same length. We never took the trouble 
 to compare them, but the impression we received from 
 
16 
 
 reading the Governor's was, that a large proportioivof 
 it was copied verbatim from the Regent's. At all 
 events, there was a happy uniformity in sentiment be- 
 tween the two ; and though we cannot boast of having 
 been convinced by either of them, it is but common 
 justice to admit, that all the plausible things, Avhether 
 true or false, that Sir William Scott could say for his 
 master, were transferred with a highly creditable 
 fidelity into this communication. The present speech 
 may be considered as an epitome of the last ; though 
 some of the topics that were then discussed more at 
 length, are almost neglected. We hear, for instance, 
 not so much about the Orders in Council and the De- 
 crees of Berlin and Milan, though the Governor still 
 lingers on that favourite subject, as if loath to take 
 his leave of a matter so pregnant with honourable 
 and pleasing reflection. 
 
 The terse and condensed form in which this docu- 
 ment sets forth the views of the British party, makes 
 it very convenient to be taken as a text for the few 
 remarks we propose to make on the opinions enter- 
 tained by that body. The Governor sets off with a 
 gratuitous vindication of the repeal of the British Or- 
 ders ; gratuitous, we say, because as they are actually 
 repealed, they could not well be made a subject of 
 quarrel, whatever motive may have occasioned their 
 revocation. But it seems insinuations have been 
 thrown out against those motives ; and though the 
 British Cabinet expressly assigned the repeal of the 
 French decrees as the cause of it, some incredulous 
 sceptics have supposed that even their assertion was 
 not conclusive proof. Of such unreasonable .suspi- 
 cion, the Governor expresses his opinion in the fol- 
 lowing terms : 
 
17 
 
 ^ If the British Orders in Council were a principal cause of the 
 present war, we had the utmost reason to expect^ that when those 
 Orders were revoked, and an armistice was proposed with a view 
 of opening the way to an accommodation, tlnat proposal would 
 have been readily agreed to. But the revocation of the Orders 
 seemed to produce no effect on the measures of our administra- 
 tion. And though the British Government had often declared, 
 that the Orders should be revoked, when the French Decrees 
 were repealed ; though they were revoked as soon after the repeal 
 was notified, as the then deranged state of the British Ministry 
 would permit — and though in the act of revocation, the repeal 
 of the French Decrees was assigned as the cause of it — yet an 
 attempt has been made to convince the people of this country, that 
 the British Orders were not revoked in consequence of the repeal 
 of the French Decrees, but from the pressure of our restrictive 
 system. This attempt seems to exhibit a want of fairness, and a 
 disposition unfriendly to peace with Great-Britain." 
 
 Notwithstanding the diffidence with which the opin- 
 ion contained in the last sentence is expressed, it is 
 pretty obvious, that the Governor has made up hi& 
 Blind on the subject, and is firmly convinced that this 
 attempt not only seems, but actually does exhibit the 
 iincandid and unfriendly disposition alluded to. How- 
 ever unpleasant it may be to differ from the Chief 
 Magistrate on this important subject, we are induced 
 by the following circumstances to entertain a contrary 
 sentiment, which we take the liberty of submitting to 
 his Excellency's notice. The question is, whether 
 there is reason to suppose that the Orders in Council 
 were repealed bonafide in consequence of the French 
 Decree, dated April 21, 1811. The engagement made 
 by the British Ministry, was to rescind their Orders 
 upon the repeal of the French Decrees. The obvious 
 and necessary meaning of this engagement is, that as 
 soon as they were informed of the French rep«al, they 
 3 
 
18 
 
 should folloM' it with their own. It did not pennit 
 them to wait till they could see whether the repeal 
 would he acted upon with good faith, for in that case 
 the engagement would he entirely nugatory, for they 
 might then have taken as much time to ascertain that 
 fact as they chose to require. Neither did the engage- 
 ment ])rescri])e any form to he ohserved in the French 
 repeal, and of course contained a virtual promise to he 
 satisfied with any sufficient evidence of the fact. In 
 this state of things, the Duke de Cadore wrote his 
 letter of August o,* 1810, to Mr. Armstrong, inform- 
 ing him that the Berlin and Milan Decrees were re- 
 voked, and specifying the time wli«n they would cease 
 to operate. Mere then the casus foederis happened, 
 and the British Cahinet was hound in good faith to 
 rescind their Orders. What did they do ? They de- 
 manded a formal decree. Had any thing been said 
 in the engagement about the form in which the repeal 
 should issue ? Not a word. Now we submit to any 
 candid man to say, whether England was not equally 
 bound by this notification of the French Minister, as 
 she could have been by the most formal instrument. 
 She had the assurance of the French Cabinet, une- 
 quivocally given, that the Decrees were actually re- 
 voked. Will it be said the French Cabinet are not 
 entitled to credit? We really think that a little varia- 
 tion in the form of the declaration would not have in- 
 creased it. If France was false, it Avas as easy ta 
 violate her decree as her w ord. If France was false, 
 she Avas as much so before Great-Britain made the 
 engagement, as at the repeal, and it was the folly of 
 Great-Britain to bind herself to acton the supposition 
 of her truth : but having so bound herself, she could 
 
 * " Uoston" is ri.^M. Tlic letter was dated Aug'. 6, and not Aug'. 10» 
 
19 
 
 not violate the engagement without breaking her own. 
 It has been pretended, that the notification by tlie 
 Duke de Cadore implied a conditional repeal. We 
 conceive that the terms do not admit that construction. 
 The offer made to France by our Government, was 
 simply this : Repeal your Decrees, and if England 
 does not repeal hers, we are bound by law to hold no 
 intercourse with her. What was the answer of 
 France ? We have repealed our Decrees, in consid- 
 eration that if England does not repeal hers, you are 
 bound to hold no intercourse with her. Is this a con- 
 dition ? 
 
 England then was bound in good faith to rescind 
 her Orders at this time. She had no right tO'Avait 
 and see whether the assurance of the French Minister 
 proved true. It was enough that she was informed of 
 the fact by the authority of France. If she found 
 herself deceived after rescinding, she could but have 
 restored her Orders, and would have stood on the 
 highest ground. She rather chose to make the very 
 singular demand of more evidence of the repeal. 
 Here then we may at least go the length of saying, 
 that there seems to be a want of fairness in the En- 
 glish Ministry, and a disposition unfriendly to peace 
 with the United States. 
 
 Observe, that we have no disposition to enter into 
 ihe question, whether the repeal announced by Cadore 
 was actually carried into effect. Unless we suppose 
 that England had a right to wait, after being informed 
 of a French repeal, till she could see with what good 
 faith it was executed, that question is of no import- 
 ance here ; and such a supposition, as we said before, 
 reduces the English engagement to a nullity. 
 
20 
 
 Let us now see the issue of this business. The 
 history of the repeal of these Orders, when it did take 
 place, connected as it is with the negociations then 
 carried on for a change of tlie Ministry, exhibits one 
 of the most curious intrigues to be found in history, 
 and adds another to the many instances, that prove on 
 what slight accidents the affairs of nations are made 
 to depend. 
 
 In April 1813, the Prince Regent published a form- 
 al manifesto, in which he declared his intention of 
 never swerving from his Orders, till America had pro- 
 cured a formal repeal of the French Decrees ; and his 
 declarations were interpreted by his Minister in this 
 country, to mean that this repeal should extend to all 
 other nations as well as to America. This was the 
 keystone, that filled up the arch and undoubtedly deter- 
 mined the war. Meanwhile Mr. Barlow was procur- 
 ing about the same time, in Paris, the Decree that 
 bore date in April 1811, and actually obtained it, and 
 sent it to England some time in the beginning of May. 
 As soon as it was heard of, the idea of founding a re- 
 peal of the Orders on a French repeal, so glaringly 
 false, antedated and hypocritical, was publicly re- 
 probated in every possible shape, and especially in 
 Parliament.* And it must in candor be admitted, 
 that the pretensions of the second repeal to sincerity 
 and good faith, were very far inferior to those of the 
 first. 
 
 • when this repeal was first mentioned in the House of Commons, Lord 
 Castlereagh and Mr. Bsy-inj agreed that it was " a shameful trich," and 
 that it made no alteration in the state of the case. Mr. Brougham ad. 
 mitted that it was "a shamejiil itich," l)ut expressed some doubt whether 
 it might not be made the ground of a repeal. In his subsequent investii 
 gations, however, he laid no stress on this point.- 
 
21 
 
 While the public miud was under tliis impression 
 about American affairs, on the 11th of May, 1812, 
 Mr. Perceval, Chancellor of the Exchequer, was as- 
 sassinated in the lobby of the House of Commons, in 
 Westminster-Hall. The loss of this person com- 
 pletely prostrated the ministerial phalanx, that had 
 already been sadly broken by former disasters. The 
 death of their great oracle, Pitt, the duel of Canning 
 and Castlereagh, which banished the former from the 
 Cabinet, and the resignation of Lord Wellesley that 
 happened the January before, had left the Treasury 
 benches in both Houses bare of talents, with the sin- 
 gle exception of Mr. Perceval. The sophistry that 
 had smoothed over piracy with the appellation of the 
 rule of 1756, was still in being in Mr. Stephen,* but 
 Mr. Stephen had no political influence, and Lord 
 
 • Mr. Stephen is the author of IVar in Disguise, a sophistical vindica- 
 tion of the rule of 1756, which was ably refuted by Messrs. Madison atid 
 Rufus King^ in separate pamphlets. The outrage which Stephen attempt- 
 ed to justify, seemed for a time to obliterate all distinction of party. 
 
 On the subject of this famous rule, tlie author of Madison\ War, 3. 
 pamphlet published in this town in 1812, has the following sentence : — 
 "I distinctly recollect, that when Mr. J. Q. Adams thought it necessary 
 to defend the administration and to attack the Ciders in Council, he did 
 not dare trust himself on the modern plea of the British aggression of 
 May I8O6, but he more prudently went backward and rested the defence 
 of France on the British adjudications in the ivar of 1756. There were 
 among us some, who thought that he might as well have urged the inva- 
 sion of France by Edward the Black Prince." 
 
 In his zeal to attack Mr. Adams this writer forgot, that the rule of 
 1756, though first acted on, or rather first defended during the war which 
 began in that year, (for piracy has, probably, been practised in all ages,) 
 and intermitted during the American war, was revived in full vigor at the 
 beginning of the French revolution, and has been enforced ever since up 
 to the present day. He forgot that it was not iifcessary to go further 
 back than from 1808, when Mr. Adams wrote to 1805, to find the most 
 odious extension of this rule in practice, and the most plausible vindica-- 
 
22 
 
 Liverpool, tlie Coryphselus of the upper house, was 
 at best vox et preterea nihil. Perceval then was their 
 sole dependanee. His greatness was entirely ih© 
 creature of circumstances. He became a giant, sim- 
 ply because all around him were pygmies. In hiar 
 long and laborious progress through the diiferent sta- 
 tions which he had occupied in the Courts, he had 
 acquired a readiness of repartee and a point and 
 quickness in debate, that enabled him to wield with 
 some success the machine of the House of Commons. 
 He was however, but ill calculated to make up for the 
 Ciceronian, imposing eloquence and unexampled in- 
 fluence of character that distinguished Pitt, and his 
 powers and acquisitions were far inferior to those of 
 Canning. We have often heard him speak and can 
 truly saya that the principal lawyers of this State 
 might not have thought themselves complimented to 
 be compared with him. There was nothing flowing ^ 
 or rich in his eloquence, and nothing philosophical ini 
 his genius. He occupied the very antipodes ofli 
 Burke. Such as he was however, he was the stay 
 and staff of the party. When he was gone, they weVe 
 left unsupported to contend with Grey and Grenville 
 and Holland in the Lords, and Sheridan, Tierney, 
 and Whitbread in the Commons, beside the third 
 party of Wellesley and Canning, in some respects, 
 more formidable than the Foxites. The consequence 
 was, what miglit have ])een expected^ that the Minis- 
 try sunk almost without a struggle. One of the first 
 
 tjon of it ill print, that the world had seen since Charles Jenkinson was 
 pensioned ■for justifying' the Ministry in their vioUlion of tlie law oi 
 rations and their treaty with Holland. 
 
23 
 
 I'otes that was taken after the death of Mr. Perceval, 
 left them in the minority, and they immediately sent in 
 their resignation.* 
 
 It was the wish of the Prince Regent at this time to 
 form a coalition ministry, which should embrace the 
 eminent talents of all parties ; and he employed the 
 Marquis Wellesley, a man of a powerful mind and 
 great personal and family influence to effect this object. 
 After using every possible effort for about three weeks, 
 Lord Wellesley found that success in this scheme w as 
 entirely hopeless. Tlie rooted aversion of the lead- 
 ing partisans for each other was so great, that they 
 eould by no means be brought to act together, and he 
 gave up the attempt — meanwliile there was a sort of 
 interregnum in the government. The actual ministry 
 only held their seats till a new one could be named, 
 and eould not be supposed to feel a very strong inter- 
 est in the conduct of a concern that was thus shuffled 
 out of their hands. Something however must be done ; 
 and in this strange situation the Prince commissioned 
 his particular personal friend, Lord Moira, to make 
 one more effort to effect a coalition, and if that could 
 not be done, to admit the opposition on their own terms. 
 A coalition was accordingly attempted once more, and 
 with the same success, so that it was at last determined 
 to admit the opposition. The Earl of Moira had fre- 
 quent conferences with Tiords Grey and Grenville, the 
 leaders of that party, and after a good deal of alterca- 
 tion and argument, all the great principles of the sys- 
 tem to be pursued were settled, to the mutual satisfac- 
 tion of both parties. The three great points of differ- 
 ence, viz. the Catholic question, the war on the Con- 
 
 •Mr. Perceval was^asaassinatcd May 11. They resigned tfce 2?d. 
 
24 
 
 tinent, and the aft'airs of America, weve adjusted, and 
 had this arrangement not been frustrated, the Catho- 
 lics of Ireland would at this moment have been eman- 
 cipated, and what is of much more consequence to us, 
 peace would have existed between this country and 
 Great Britian. 
 
 At this moment were displayed in their full extent 
 the folly and the curse of monarchical governments, or 
 if you will the perversity of human nature. After the 
 great principles of government and policy were ad- 
 justed, there remained some smaller particulars to set- 
 tle ; and finally when every thing else was done, the 
 opposition leaders insisted that the Lord Chamberlain, 
 Marquis of Hertford, an officer of mere parade, should 
 be removed. This Lord Moira positively refused, and 
 the negociation was broken off. That such a trifle 
 should have frustrated an arrangement of such impor- 
 tance, would excite no little surprise ; but that senti- 
 ment yields to indignation and contempt, w hen we find 
 that the reason why Lord Moira could not ask tlie 
 Prince to part with his Chamberlain was, that his Roy- 
 al Highness had a tender attachment for his Chamber- 
 lain's W'ife. What a pleasant page this w ill fill in 
 liistory ! The Catholic found his chains clanking again 
 round his limbs, after a momentary hope of respite, 
 and a deeper darkness settled on the gulph that inter- 
 posed itself between England and America. Four 
 millions of people were deprived of their equal rights, 
 and tw o nations were involved in a war, that could not 
 end without the loss of many thousand lives and many 
 millions of property — because it would have been impo- 
 lite and indecorous to molest the First Magistrate of the 
 bulwark of our religion, in his enjoyment of adulterous 
 
25 
 
 pleasure.^ Tt may perhaps he a matter of woiulel", 
 why the opposition Lords should have insisted on this 
 removal ; and their conduct in this did not escape cen- 
 sure. They probably thought however that the Hert- 
 ford family would be the real ministry, and felt averse 
 to giving their name and authority to measures, which 
 they did not originate. 
 
 We now come to the point W'hich connects this nar- 
 rative with the repeal of the Orders in Council. Baf- 
 fled in all his attempts to form a new ministry, the 
 Prince breathed upon the dry bones of his former cab- 
 inet, and invested them once more with their robes of 
 office. During the latter part of the negociations we 
 have just related, Mr. Brougham, the friend of Amer- 
 ica, had taken advantage of the disordered state of the 
 cabinet, to press upon the consideration of Parliament 
 the repeal of the Orders in Council.! It w^as not how- 
 ever on the ground of the French repeal — that w as 
 hardly mentioned. It w as on the ground of the inter- 
 nal distresses they occasioned in the manufacturing 
 part of the country ; to prove the existence of w hich, 
 hundreds of witnesses were examined at the bar of the 
 House of Commons. The ministry still tottering on 
 their seats, unable to oppose the torrent of public opin- 
 
 * The connexion between the Prince Rejent aiid the Marchioness of 
 Hertford was a matter of public notoriety to every individual in London. 
 The other facts respecting- the negociation are principally taken from a 
 pamphlet, published under the direction of the opposition Lords, of which 
 an account may be seen in one of the Edinburgh Reviews for 1812. The 
 Reviewer, reputed to be Mr. Brougham, disapproved of the conduct of the 
 opposition Lords in the close of this business. 
 
 j The inquiry was instituted aboiil the latter end of April or tiie begin- 
 ning of .May ; but Mr. Perceval at the time, declared himself as fully at- 
 tached as ever to the orders. Evidence was heard on the subject from 
 time to time till his death, and after Parliament had recovered from that 
 s]iock, the inquiry wcnx, on till the repeal took place on the IStli June. 
 
26 
 
 ion, and willing to procure popularity by a concilia- 
 tory measure, concluded that the Orders should be re- 
 pealed. To save their own consistency, they thought 
 proper to insert in their repeal the clause which the 
 Governor deems so conclusive. 
 
 Such is the history of the repeal of the British Or- 
 ders. If any man, that reads and believes it, is still 
 of opinion, that it is unfair to suspect the ministry of 
 having been actuated by any other motive than the 
 French repeal, we can only say, that his mind is dif. 
 ferently affected by evidence from ours. As we are 
 not conscious of being biassed by any prejudice, we 
 cannot but think that the reader will coincide with us 
 in sentiment ; and that the suspicion of unfairness, en- 
 tertained by the Governor, must fix itself in some other 
 quarter. 
 
 No. S. 
 
 The next subject that the Governor touches upon is im- 
 pressmenty a subject of much more consequence than 
 the one we have just considered : for as the Orders in 
 Council are really revoked, it is rather a question of 
 curiosity, than advantage, to inquire what particular 
 circumstances occasioned that very desirable event; 
 and it is perhaps of minor importance to the free citi- 
 zens of the United States, to know what operation 
 this or that motive may have had on the mind of an 
 English courtier : but the matter of Impressment con- 
 cerns the lives and liberties of our own countrymen. 
 It deserves to be seriously considered, not rashly de- 
 cided on. The Governor expresses his opinion upon 
 it in the following paragraphs : 
 
27 
 
 " Nor can we readily believe that the war was declared or is 
 carried on lor the protection of our native seamen. The States 
 which produce them, well know, that the number impressed 
 by British ships has been grossly exaggerated — that the British 
 Government has uniformly disclaimed any right to impress them — 
 that when impressed, they have been discharged when their citi- 
 zenship was ascertained ; and that the number of Bi'itish seamen 
 employed by us, has, at all times, been far greater than those of all 
 nations who have been impressed from our vessels. No class of 
 men has suffered more by tlie war than our gallant native seamen ; 
 they have been more injured in one year of hostility, than they 
 ever were, or probably ever would have been by British impress- 
 ment — they are eminently- distinguished for bravery and naval 
 skill, and whenever their services can be useful to thefr country, 
 they will do all that men can do. But their number is diminish- 
 ing, and during the war must continue to diminish, from the an- 
 nihilation of their ordinary business, as well as from the immense 
 superiority of force employed against them. 
 
 " If we are contending for the support of a claim to exempt 
 British seamen from their allegiance to their own country, is it 
 not time to inquire whether our claim is just ? And, if the justice 
 of it was apparent, whether the cause we arc pursuing has any 
 tendency to establish it, and to change the opinion and laws of the 
 States of Europe ? So far as the war is carried on for this pur- 
 pose, or to protect neutral merchant ships from search by belli- 
 gerents, it seems to be equally opposed to our own principles and 
 practice, and the established rules and usages of other nations." 
 
 On this subject, as on the last, it is our misfortune 
 to differ from his Excellency ; and we shall make no 
 scruple to lay our reasons for so doing before the 
 public. 
 
 Before we proceed directly to consider this subject, 
 it is well to notice the remark, made by the Gov- 
 ernor, that the British government has uniformly 
 disclaimed any right to impress native Americans. 
 We are not aware that it was ever asserted, or even 
 suspected, that suclx a claim had boon advanced. If 
 
2S 
 
 they really supposed themselves to possess such a 
 right, policy would dictate to refrain from puhlishing 
 it ; for the enormity of the claim \\ ould at once des- 
 troy every possibility of its success, and unite in oppo- 
 sition to it every individual that by any means what- 
 ever was brought within its operation. But we have 
 charity enough for the British ministry to suppose 
 them sincere in disclaiming such a right : we can hard- 
 ly imagine that even Castlereagh or Canning think 
 themselves at liberty to kidnap free men at discretion. 
 Neither are we aware that our government have, as is 
 intimated above, made a claim of exempting British 
 seamen from their allegiance to their own country. 
 The claim they make is to exempt our own vessels 
 from being searched for British seamen, and the citi- 
 zenship of our native citizens from being called in 
 question, and decided on by the petty naval officers of a 
 foreign poAver, in the exercise of the not very consis- 
 tent duties of judge and party interested. Our gov- 
 ernment have always professed themselves willing, 
 as far as they could, to assist the British government 
 in securing to themselves their own seamen ; which 
 is as far as a nation can be required in reason to ex- 
 tend their complaisance. We are really unable to see 
 any justice in oldiging the American government to 
 guarantee to England the services of all her sailors, 
 under an enormous penalty, with whose desertion they 
 have no more concern than the Emperor of China. 
 The real question then is, have the British govern- 
 ment a right, by tlie law of nations, to enter our sliips 
 by their officers, and take from them such men as they 
 ghoose to call I^ritish seamen ? 
 
29 
 
 We observe first, that the practice of irapressment- 
 is itself an outrage on all law, human and divine ; and 
 that it is the grossest abuse of terms to call it legal, 
 wherever it may be practised. — It is as much against 
 law in Great-Britain, as any where else. Is there an 
 act in their statute book that justifies it ? Not one. Is 
 there a case in all the multiplied reports of their mul- 
 tifarious courts, in which the point is decided, that a 
 free English citizen may be impressed ? Not one. — 
 The timidity of their judges has induced them to con- 
 nive at the practice, which a conscientious discharge 
 of duty would compel them to check in every individ- 
 ual instance. Of what consequence is the habeas cor- 
 pus act, if two hundred thousand freemen of equal 
 rights with their fellow-citizens, are deprived of its 
 benefits ? They pretend that the right is founded on 
 immemorial usage. The Governor is too good a law- 
 yer to be ignorant that no prescription can run against 
 the life and liberty of a citizen. If a statute were pass- 
 ed to-morrow in the British Parliament, investing the 
 crown with this odious prerogative, the statute would 
 be void ; for it would be contrary to the express pro- 
 vision of magna cliarta. They say that necessity jus- 
 tifies it. A temporary and unexpected necessity will 
 doubtless justify a temporary infraction of law and 
 justice, to meet its exigencies. But what shall we say 
 to a necessity that has existed from time immemorial ? 
 Common sense would say at once, that such a neces- 
 sity is one of the ordinary necessities of government, 
 and that the sacrifices it requires, must in justice, be 
 apportioned equally among those who are to bear them. 
 
 This then is the root of the evil. If Britain would 
 wash her hands of this domestic tyranny, we should 
 
30 
 
 bear no more disputes about allegiance and right of 
 service. We anticipate, however, the very just re- 
 mark, that we have no riglit to interfere with the mu- 
 nicipal regulations of a foreign power, any farther than 
 they operate upon ourselves. We return, therefore, 
 to the real question, as stated before. To resolve this 
 question, we beg leave to ask, in the first place, on 
 what the right of search is founded ? Is there an ori- 
 ginal right in every ship that sails upon the ocean, to 
 stop and examine every other ship she meets ? If there 
 be, on what is it founded? It certainly does not 
 belong to the ship itself, but to those who navigate it ; 
 nor to all together, more than to each individual sep- 
 arately ; and as we can discover no reason why a man 
 has a greater right to interfere with his neighbor at sea 
 than on shore, it must l)elong to every individual in the 
 world by land or sea : that is, every individual has a 
 right to stop every other man he meets, and inquire his 
 business, with the liberty of fighting him if he refuses 
 to tell. Such are the absurdities that necessarily fol- 
 low the supposition of an original right of search. They 
 are so glaring, that we apprehend we shall be charged 
 with inventing a system for the mere pleasure of refuting 
 it. To free ourselves from this imputation, we must be 
 permitted to remark, that this is the opinion of the Abbe 
 Galiani, one of the best writers on national law, and 
 honorably quoted by Mr. Pickering, in his correspond- 
 ence with Mr. Monroe at Paris. This writer, convinced 
 of the impracticability of sustaining the right of search 
 9^ a belligerent right, and yet unwilling to give it up 
 entirely, resorted to the above theory to reconcile his 
 prejudices with his understanding. He first states as 
 a principle, ihst »• a traveller by land knows to a cer- 
 
31 
 
 tainty what the towns, cities, and castles are that he 
 meets, and what government their inhabitants belong 
 to ; he may even know by his geography, what places 
 he is to find before he arrives at them ; but at sea it is 
 impossible to be certain of a country to which a ship 
 belongs ; whether it be a merchant vessel or an armed 
 ship, and what cargo it contains, till you have not only 
 examined it very nearly, but have been on board to 
 visit it." From this principle he draws his conclu- 
 sion, that " the right of search is a natural right, given 
 for defence and protection. It does not belong to arm- 
 ed ships only : it exists not in times of war alone : it 
 is a universal riglit, that belongs reciprocally to all 
 nations in all places."* 
 
 This doctrine requires no refutation. The most that 
 will be pretended is, that the right of search belongs to 
 belligerents. We mention the other opinion, merely 
 to shew that a writer who in his zeal for the right of 
 search could admit even such reasons as that, could 
 not grant this right to belligerents as such. And in 
 fact, how is it conceivable that two foreign nations, of 
 whom I am entirely independent, by falling into a dis- 
 pute with each other, acquire a right to detain and molest 
 every innocent ship of mine that sails on the ocean ? It 
 would be much more natural to suppose that the peace- 
 able nation acquired the right, if she l)ad the power 
 of exercising it, of seizing all belligerent vessels, as 
 well-disposed passengers feel themselves authorized 
 to step between two bullies, who are fighting in the 
 street. The right of searcli then, does not belong to 
 belligerents as such. 
 
 * Galrani on Neutral Uighls, c. IQ, s. 5. 
 
33 
 
 Wliat then is its fouiidatiou? for we by no means 
 intend to deny that it exists. It is founded entirely 
 on convention. Belligerent nations probably usurped 
 it at first, and neutrals have been obliged by fear, or 
 induced by supposed convenience, to concede it in the 
 sequel. These concessions are proved and recorded 
 in various treaties ; they have been sanctioned by re- 
 spectable writers on the law of nations, and have been 
 acted upon till they have grown into a confirmed and 
 settled usage, which no nation that has practised or 
 submitted to it would be justified in resisting, till she^ 
 had first given reasonable notice. But being founded 
 on convention, this usage is of necessity defined and 
 restricted by the convention which justifies it. For the 
 purposes specified in treaties, and the law of nations, 
 ships of war have the right of visiting and searching 
 neutrals ; but for all other purposes whatsoever, they 
 are no more justified in visiting a ship, than in making 
 a descent upon the territory of a nation, and for every 
 other object but those defined by law, the yard of bunt- 
 ing that floats upon the poop of a merchant vessel, is 
 in reality, to borrow the language of a writer who in- 
 tended it for sarcasm, more sacred than the veil of a 
 vestal. Some cases may be considered as dou])tful ; 
 such is the question of free ships, free goods ; and 
 though the burthen of proof clearly rests on the belli- 
 gerent, and therefore, till his claim is made out beyond 
 a question, he is bound in justice not to exercise it, 
 yet it is not unnatural that the arm of power should 
 strain a doubtful point to its ow n interest. In the case 
 of impressment, we have happily no occasion to strike 
 a balance between conflicting decisions or opposite au- 
 thorities ; for the most determined advocate of this 
 
33 
 
 practice, not ^;lie Grovernor, not Mr. Pickering himself, 
 ever pretended to produce a single treaty that author- 
 ized the practice : a single passage from the weakest 
 writer on national law, that — we will not sdi^^^justrjiedy 
 but even mentioned the right of impressment. Tie 
 nearest approximation to it, that has been discovered, 
 is in the right allowed by treaties, to take from mer- 
 chant ships soldiers of an enemy in actual service. The 
 spirit of this provision is obvious, to prevent the enemy 
 from using neutral merchantmen as transports. We 
 may consider, however, that cause as nearly desperate, 
 that, in defence of a right founded only on specific 
 concession, justifies the taking of friendly seamen under 
 a grant of enemy soldiers. The law of nations, by her 
 own construction, permits Britain to take enemy's pro- 
 perty from neutral bottoms ; but we are not aware that 
 she has ever interpreted the phrase, enemy's property, 
 to mean that of British subjects. The ancient Romans, 
 in their earliest period, considered the terms of stran- 
 ger and enemy, as synonymous ; but we never heard 
 that even they confounded the distinction between hostis 
 and civis, an enemy and a citizen. Since then the 
 right of impressment, if it exist, is founded on speci- 
 fic concession, and since no such concession is addu- 
 ced, or even pretended, it may be cons'dered perhaps 
 the clearest point of national law that ever was agi- 
 tated, that no such right exists. 
 
 It is an obvious consideration, in addition to the 
 above, that if the right of Britain to take British sea- 
 men, known to be such, from our vessels were admit- 
 ted, (which God forbid it ever should be,) it would 
 still be but common decency to allow them the form- 
 5 
 
34 
 
 alities of a legal trial. The liberty of a man certainly 
 deserves as much regard as the ownership of a bale of 
 cotton. A cask of the meanest 1st proof Jamaica 
 spirit can only be forfeited by the sentence of an Ad- 
 miralty Judge, but the living vessel, which contains a 
 portion of that pure spirit, that the Almighty himself 
 breathed into man when he gave him understanding, 
 is subject, forsooth, of right, to the arbitrary decision 
 of that grave and venerable personage, (learned, no 
 doubt, in the law of nations,) the lieutenant of a ship 
 of war. When slavery or villenage Avas the legal 
 condition of the greater proportion of English sub- 
 jects, the good sense and humanity of the English 
 law, if a man claimed to be free, always threw the 
 burthen of proof upon the master. But an American 
 seaman is subject to this most arbitrary and galling 
 tyranny, unless he can establish his exemption, by 
 doing what is commonly pronounced impossible in 
 logic, we mean, proving a negative. It is as if a 
 constable, in search of stolen property, should enter 
 ray house with a warrant, and take, not what he could 
 reasonably establish to belong tothecomplainant,but all 
 the furniture that I could not prove, by legal voucher, 
 to be my own. Only think, for a moment, of the 
 barefaced enormity of this pretension. It is not that 
 Britain may take, where she can find them, the sea- 
 men she can prove to be her own, but that every sail- 
 or, in every ship of every nation in the world, must 
 prove by indisputable documents, that he is not a 
 British subject. This is the right for whicli Britain 
 has drawn the sword, and which the Grovernor of 
 Massachusetts is supporting with the whole weight of 
 
35 
 
 Ills oiBeial authority, and respectable individual char- 
 acter.* 
 
 It is not uncommon for the advocates of impress- 
 ment to pass somewhat lightly over the right, and 
 take refuge in its necessity. They say that it is a 
 practice indispensably necessary to the existence of 
 Britain. To this there is but one rational answer, 
 that liberty is also indispensably necessary to an 
 American citizen, and that our Government are under 
 
 • A writer in a Dally Paper, soon after this essay was publislied, in- 
 timated that he was not convinced by our argument about the right of 
 search and impressment. Such perversity must be proof against all fur- 
 ther attempts in prose, and we take tha liberty of recommending to him 
 the following lines, as having some relation to the subject. They acci- 
 dentally fell into our hands some time ago, and appear to have been writ- 
 ten about the time the pirate Dalton received his pardon from the Preii- 
 dent. We suppose from the manner in which they were arranged, and 
 from every line being begun with a capital letter, that they were intended 
 for poetry. 
 
 THE PIRATE. 
 
 Joy to thee, Dalton, thy release is come ; 
 
 I'm glad the President had grace enough 
 
 To pardon thee at last — Thy crime, 1 ween. 
 
 Was ignorance, not malice — head, not heart 
 
 Was wanting to thee. Thou hadst as good a will 
 
 As any Prince or Emperor of them all 
 
 To thrive on others' earnings ; but the manner — 
 
 That failed thee. Things have changed since Shakespeare's time ■ 
 
 There's virtue in a name— A pirate — fie oii't 1 
 
 Belligerent'' s the word. 
 
 Y\\ tell thee, Dalton, 
 
 A story: — If thou keepst to thine old tricke 
 
 It may be useful to thee — When long since 
 
 The Bande Nere played their pranks in Italy, 
 
 Two leaders of them posted each his troop 
 
 Beside a narrow pass, and by consent 
 
 Made war upon each other. One sent forlh 
 
 A formal declaration, and the other 
 
 A justifying memoir ; — by which they gained 
 
 Their rights belligerent — Rights to wliat ? No doui^t 
 
36 
 
 the absolute necessity of protecting our people. It is 
 indeed very singular, that because Great-Britain has 
 not policy enough to avoid such quarrels as endanger 
 her existence, our innocent and peaceful citizens 
 should be deprived of their dearest rights. It vi^as 
 the saying of an ancient poet, as imitated by a greater 
 one of modern times, ^^ Rulers run riot, and the peo- 
 ple pay." It was a true statement of the hard neces- 
 sity of human affairs ; that innocent subjects must 
 suffer for the faults of theii- guilty Governors. But a 
 
 To rob and kill each other. No ; far better ; 
 
 Rights over every innocent man that passed 
 
 To call him neutral, and then plunder him, 
 
 Yea, kill him, if they pleased; for " rights belligerent 
 
 Are paramount to neutral "* Each poor wight 
 
 That passed, they stopped and fumbled in his pockets; 
 
 Made him walk in, though life and death were staked 
 
 On the issue of his speed ; secured his money 
 
 And wished him a good journey. He was happy 
 
 That saved his purse, by paying his entertainers 
 
 Handsomely for their trouble. Further still : 
 
 They stopped the diligences as they passed ; 
 
 Coaches and wagf;ons, and demanded proof 
 
 That the passengers were not their servants. Prootj 
 
 Sufficient certain, some sure document 
 
 In which description tallied perfectly 
 
 With every line and feature of the bearer. 
 
 They argued thus : Our servants run away ; 
 
 Now if stage coaches have the privilege 
 
 To carry whom they please, our runaway servants 
 
 Inevitably escape ; and 'tis a less evil 
 
 For all the world to prove they are not our servants, 
 
 Tlian for our dignities to prove who are. 
 
 Proof not being had, the passengers had their choice 
 
 To enlist or lie in chains. They said, however. 
 
 As a maik of kindness, if these passengers' friends, 
 
 That lived belike in China w New-Holland, 
 
 Would prove tlum not their servants, they might go ; 
 
 They only wished their own- 
 
 • Madison^ War. 
 
37 
 
 harder measure still is dealt to our unfortunate peo- 
 ple. They not only siiifer for the sins of their own 
 rulers, but must bear the burden of the iniquities of 
 other nations. Upon us are visited, not only the 
 offences of our Presidents, but the crimes of the Em- 
 peror of France. They retaliate on us for the wrongs 
 of their natural enemy. We cannot but recommend 
 to the British Cabinet, as they have adopted the sen- 
 timents, to avail themselves of the language of Mil- 
 ton's devil ; for we humbly think, in neglecting the 
 
 Now this was wisdom ; 
 And thus these men grew rich. Thus shouldst thou, Dalton, 
 Instead of making war on all the world. 
 Have chosen some one enemy, so that thou 
 Being thus belligerents and the rest being neuter, 
 Plain natural law permits the self-same conduct, 
 That thou didst just not sowing for. 
 
 Common law 
 Holds, if a man shoot full into a crowd 
 And kill, 'tis murder, though no former malice 
 Appear against the slain. Suppose then, two 
 Shoot at each other through a harmless crowd, 
 Are they less guilty of the deaths that follow I 
 'Tis answered, let the passengers beware. 
 What ? Shall the peaceful order of the world 
 Be broken, that two bravoes may have leisure 
 To brcik each other's heads ? Thou monstrous reasoners ! 
 Are blood and battle so to be encouraged, 
 That all things fair and liberal, smiling commerce, 
 Labour of tillage, all-producing arts. 
 Learning and science and the charities 
 That hang on general intercourse, must yield, 
 Quit, and retire and leave the earth itself 
 A mere arena, where two gladiators 
 May wallow, like wild beasts, neck deep in blood. 
 No ; 'tis the peaceful nations have the rights ; 
 Belligerents have none. If they will go 
 Quietly to a corner, and fight out 
 Their quarrels. Jet them do so, and be grateful 
 That peaceful nations grant that privilege. 
 
38 
 
 poetry, they have omitted the least exceptionable 
 
 part : 
 
 Thank him, who puts me loath to this revenge 
 On you, who wrong me not for him who wrong'd. 
 
 And should I at your harmless imioce?ice 
 Mtlt, as I do, yet public reason just. 
 Honour and Empire with revenge enlarg'd. 
 By conquering this nenv world, compels me now 
 To do what else though damned, I should abhor. 
 
 So spake the fiend, and with necessity. 
 The tyrant's plea-^ excused his devilish deeds. 
 
 Par. Lost, iv. 1*6. 
 
 We beg the reader to remark how well Mr. Can- 
 ning had caught the spirit of the third and fourth 
 lines, when he indited the very compassionate letter 
 in which he condoled witli America on the miseries of 
 the first embargo. 
 
 We shall notice only one other method in which 
 the advocates of impressment support their cause, of 
 which the Governor has also not neglected to avail 
 himself. This is, to wave all question about the right 
 or justifiableness of the practice, and to rest their 
 defence solely on the ground that it is an object not 
 worth contending about. Of what consequence, say 
 they, are a few seamen, more or less, to this country, 
 compared with the blessings of peace and commerce ? 
 It is true, no doubt, that should the war last a good 
 deal longer, we may perhaps lose in fair battle more 
 seamen than we should have lost by impressment in 
 twenty years. This is the point also, on which bears 
 the inquiry instituted last year by our State Legis- 
 lature, and the evident attempt to make the people of 
 this country believe that the whole business is a gross 
 fabrication, and that a single American citizen was 
 
39 
 
 never impressed, notwithstanding the official records 
 of thousands that have been discharged on proof, and 
 tens of thousands that have claimed their discharge. 
 We would ask the considerate gentlemen who hold 
 the opinion above stated, where they learnt the max- 
 im of policy, that the best way to avoid future wrongs 
 and occasions of quarrel, is to submit quietly to the 
 beginning of usurpation ? Do they think to gain the 
 favour of this gigantic power by surrendering to her 
 grasp the victims she now thinks fit to claim as a pro- 
 pitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the rest? Such 
 meanness never moved a British heart. They are too 
 proud themselves to respect tame submission in others. 
 Her claims, if unresisted, would extend from one 
 thing to another ; and when by gradual concession 
 she had wrested from us our rights at sea, we should 
 soon be in danger on shore. The sea-monster would 
 rise from his native element and attack us in our 
 houses, and the very advocates of impressment might 
 only experience tender mercies like those of the 
 ancient Cyclops, to be reserved for the last victims. 
 
 AVe read in the ancient history of Athens, that that 
 country was once subjected by the king of Crete to a 
 disgraceful tribute. By way of retribution for some 
 real or supposed wrong suffered by his Cretan Ma- 
 jesty, they were bound to send every ninth year, seven 
 young men and as many virgins, which the king, with 
 a truly regal humanity, served up as luncheons to his 
 grandson the Minotaur. We are told by Plutarch, 
 that the Athenians twice paid this tribute of blood. 
 The third time that it was demanded, Theseus, the 
 son of the king of Athens, voluntarily offered himself 
 as one of the victims ; but instead of submittins; tamelv 
 
40 
 
 to the fate that awaited him, he sailed with a powerful 
 fleet, defeated the Cretan Admiral at the mouth of his 
 own harbour, and delivered his country from this sav- 
 age imposition. For this and other glorious exploits, 
 Tlieseus was numbered by the Athenians with the 
 greatest of their heroes ; and even at the present day, 
 we cannot but admire his patriotism, and rejoice in 
 his success. But what should we, what would his 
 countrymen have thought of him, if he had risen in 
 the Athenian Assembly and said to his fellow-citizens, 
 ^^ Men of Athens, I advise you to make no opposition 
 to the demands of his Cretan Majesty. Fourteen 
 young persons every nine years, is a loss that may be 
 easily borne by your populous and flourishing city. 
 Besides, you will lose in one naval conflict, in all 
 probability, more precious lives than it will cost you 
 to feed the Minotaur a century. AVhen we are a 
 great deal richer and stronger, and more populous 
 than we now are, it may possibly be expedient to ven- 
 ture a quarrel about it ; but at present, our wisest 
 course is submission.'' 
 
 Had such been the language of Theseus, he miglit 
 very probably have passed for a prudent considerate 
 gentleman, but we doubt whether he would ever have 
 gained the reputation of a patriot and a hero. Wheth- 
 er this piece of history is at all parallel to any thins 
 that we see in present transactions, we shall leave en- 
 tirely to the decision of the reader. 
 
 The advocates of impressment are generally great 
 admirers of England : we therefore take the liberty of 
 stating, for their edification, tlie manner in which that 
 country conducted in circumstanaces somewhat simi 
 lar to ours. In tlie year 1738, the Spaniards suspect- 
 
41 
 
 ing the English vessels that traded to the West In- 
 dies of a contraband intercourse with their own South 
 American settlements, searched tiiem very narrowly, 
 and committed many acts of wanton oppression in tliese 
 examinations. Sir Robert A>'alpole, then Prime Miu- 
 ister, a man of a very pacific character, was williii!; to 
 make some sacrifices to preserve the peace, and had 
 actually negociated a treaty with Spain, iu which he 
 •onsented to leave the right of search for future dis- 
 cussion, for we may remark, that England then denied 
 the right of the Spaniards to search her merchant 
 ships. But before the treaty could be completely rat- 
 ified, some fresh instances of outrage were heard of, 
 and witnesses were examined on the subject at the 
 bar of the House of Commons. Among the witnesses 
 w as one Jenkins, an officer iu a merchant vessel. He 
 testified, that the Spanish boarding officer had grossly 
 insulted him, and when he threatened him with the 
 vengeance of the British Government, the Spaniard 
 cut his ear off, and told him to shew them that as a 
 proof of what he suffered. '^ And what was your con- 
 duct in these circumstances ?" asked a Member of 
 the House of Commons : '•' Sir," said Jenkins, ^' I 
 despaired of my life, bat I committed myself to God, 
 and my cause to my country.'* The ^linister found 
 it absolutely necessary to break off the negociation, 
 and declare war with Spain. We quote this instance 
 not because we approve the conduct of the English 
 nation in involving two countries in w ar for tlie unau- 
 thorized outrage of an individual, but to show the ad- 
 mirers of England w hat lier conduct would be in cirr 
 cumstances like ours. 
 6 
 
4S 
 
 We too profess to be atlmiiers of England ; but w« 
 tt'ould shew our admiration rather in imitating her 
 good qualities, than in crouching to her oppression. 
 We approve her free constitution, without thinking it 
 faultless. We respect the character of her inhabi- 
 tants, though we cannot find them amiable ; and we 
 look with a tender regard towards the country of our 
 ancestors, though that country spurned them from her 
 shores^ and has persecuted their decendants to the utter- 
 most corners of the earth. 
 
 No. 3. 
 
 After apologizing for the conduct of the British 
 Cabinet in relation to the Orders in Council and im- 
 pressment, the Governor proceeds, as might be ex- 
 pected, to attack our National Administration, and 
 expresses his opinion of the late embargo act, in the 
 following paragraph : 
 
 " The late act of the National Government interdicting the 
 trade coastwise, between the different parts of the same State, as 
 well as between the states respectively, and with all foreign na- 
 tions, contains provisions of such a character as makes it worthy 
 of an inquiry, whether any measure can be properly adopted by 
 this Government, which would be likely to induce Congress to 
 repeal them, or to amend thehn in such manner as to render their 
 constitulicnality less questionable ?" 
 
 The import of this passage is pretty evident, though 
 it has an appearance of moderation, that in another 
 man might liave been styled Jesuitical. Could we 
 suppose the Governor to have any thing in common 
 with that arch-heretic Gibbon, we should conclude 
 
 I 
 
45 
 
 that be, like the historian of Rome, hatl been studying 
 grave irony in the school of Pascal. If, however, 
 there were any ambiguity in the language of the 
 speech, it is sufficiently explained by the answer of 
 the House, which informs us, amongst other things, 
 that this act ^* absolves from their obligation, as citi- 
 zens, all such as are disqualified by its arbitrary pro- 
 visions from enjoying their rights and fulfilling their 
 duties as citizens." 
 
 If something still more explicit be wanting, we can 
 inform the reader, that in the debate in the Senate on 
 the answer, we heard from the mouth of that cOnsis- 
 tent and respectable federalist, the Honourable Fran- 
 cis Blake, the following sentiment : — He hoped that 
 before the end of this session, the New -En gland 
 States would be confederated into a separate sove- 
 reignty, and that rope of sand, the Union, dissolved. 
 
 Such being the opinions of the Governor, and such 
 the sentiment of the majority in tlie Legislature, it is 
 worth while to examine, for a moment, this arbitrary, 
 tyrannical, " disfranchising act," and discover what 
 gross and palpable violations of tlie Constitution are 
 contained in it, that have roused to so high a degree 
 the patriotic spirit of these honourable men. 
 
 In the first place, it is an act laying an embargo : 
 and some, we do not say all, of its opponents have, 
 at this time of day, made the discovery that all em- 
 bargoes are unconstitutional. We should really think, 
 after the recommendation and example of President 
 Washington, and the sanction of the highest Judicial 
 Tribunals of the country, that the question might be 
 considered as settled, that an embargo is a constitu- 
 tional measure. We recollect, that when IVIr. .leffev- 
 
44 
 
 son's embargo was first laid, it was objected to, as in-r 
 consistent with the Constitution, because no specific 
 time was provided for its duration. At that time, 
 however, after full argument and mature considera- 
 tion, it was decided by a federal Judge, that this act 
 was constitutional. At that time it does not seem to 
 have been even imagined, that the imputation of un- 
 constitutionality could be fixed upon all embargoes, 
 as such ; and we presume very few rational men of 
 any party, can entertain such an idea. We, there- 
 fore, beg leave to take for granted, tliat an embargo 
 may be constitutional, and proceed to consider the re- 
 maining ground of objection, that this act prohibits the 
 coasting trade. 
 
 The provision in the Constitution, authorizing Con- 
 gress to regulate commerce, is confined in its terms to 
 commerce xvith foreign nations^ between the States, 
 and with the Indians ; but is it to be supposed for a 
 moment, that when these interests, so much more im- 
 portant in themselves than the coasting trade between 
 parts of the came State, were implicitly committed to 
 Congress, that the latter Avas reserved as a thing too 
 sacred to be placed at their disposal ? Is that body 
 authorized to dispose, as they tliink proper, of our 
 trade with Great-Britain and the continent, the Medi- 
 terranean, Africa, Clnna, the ^ast and West-Indies, 
 Greenland, and the North- West Coast, of the fish- 
 cries, and of our intercourse witli all the other States 
 in the Atlantic ? Is all this commerce at their mercy 
 to suspend and modify at pleasure, and are Hingham 
 packets and Eastern coasters the only things that float 
 the sea, too important to be committed to our delegat- 
 ed rulers, too momentous to be entrusted to any hands 
 
45 
 
 but our own ? We really think that, after placing at 
 their mercy all the rest of our commerce, we need not 
 be so very squeamish about this poor remainder. 
 After all, however, it may be said that it is not placed 
 at their disposal. To this we answer, it is not indeed 
 totidem verbis ; and the intercourse between different 
 parts of the State seems, in general, to be of right, a 
 matter belonging properly to the regulation of that 
 State. But it is given to Congress by the most tlirect 
 implication, whenever the circumstances of the times 
 make it necessary to suspend all commerce, otherwise 
 the power given to Congress to regulate commerce is 
 entirely nugatory, since, under pretence of carrying 
 on a coasting trade between parts of the same State, 
 its provisions may be eluded without the possibility 
 of prevention. Experience has proved, that no pe- 
 nalty is sufficiently alarming, no bond powerful enough 
 to prevent the infraction of law by the unprincipled 
 and the avaricious. 
 
 If, therefore, an Embargo be ever constitutional, and 
 this we shall take for granted, it is a necessary conse- 
 quence that it is permitted in such a form and under 
 such modifications, as to ensure its enforcement. Tlie 
 constitution expressly gives to Congress power to make 
 all laws necessary to carry into effect the powers that 
 are particularly entrusted. To enforce an Embargo 
 law with any degree of effect, experience has shewn 
 that commerce must be totally prohibited, the necessity 
 therefore exists, that gives to Congress the power of re- 
 gulating the commerce between parts of the same State. 
 
 We have hitherto taken it for granted that the right 
 of laying an Embargo results from the authority given 
 to Congress to regulate commerce, and on this supposi- 
 
46 
 
 tioii we have found the late act tobe perfectly defensible. 
 We are of opinion liowever, that it is quite unneces- 
 sary to seek in this specific provision tlie authority 
 desired. The more natural construction of this clause 
 would refer to such laws, as might be found necessary 
 to prescribe the manner in which the several branches 
 of trade should be carried on ; and the provision that 
 empowers Congress to provide for the common defence 
 of the United States, is a sufficient authority for any 
 meaiure, undertaken for that object and usually adopt- 
 ed by other nations and governments. It would have 
 been an endless task to enumerate every specific meas- 
 ure of offence or defence that the Government might 
 resort to. In that case our Constitution would have 
 been encumbered with blockades, sieges, fortifications, 
 frigates, gunboats, and torpedoes, and fifty still harder 
 names, till common men could not have read it without 
 a military dictionary. Happily the unmanly jealousy, 
 that would dictate such miserable restrictions, was not 
 then the order of the day. Congress was authorised 
 to make war, raise navies and armies, and provide for 
 the common defence, and we do most seriously submit 
 it to the judgment of every candid man, whether under 
 this authority they are not permitted to resort to all 
 such measures of offence or defence as may be usual or 
 necessary. Now every nation finds itself at times under 
 the necessity of resorting to an Embargo. This be- 
 comes on particular occasions a natural and even ne- 
 cessary measure. It requires then no stretch of libe- 
 rality to find an authority for it in the provisions above 
 mentioned. It only requires us not to violate the com 
 nion rules of construction. 
 
4? 
 
 The power to suspend commerce tlius derived ex- 
 tends as well to the coasting trade between ports of the 
 same State as to any other traffic. If the suspension 
 of commerce be necessary for the common defence, we 
 see no reason why one branch of it should pretend to 
 claim exemption any more than another, or why the 
 trivial interest of the internal coasting trade of single 
 States, should be more favored than the general and 
 important objects of foreign and domestic commerce. 
 This would be indeed to strain at a gnat and swallow 
 a camel. 
 
 We are far from saying that if circumstances of par- 
 ticular distress arise from the prohibition of any branch 
 of trade, it would be inconsistent with the wisdom of 
 a prudent government to admit some relaxation of the 
 injurious clause. Such relaxations, we believe, have 
 been granted in cases of individual distress occasioned 
 by the prohibition of foreign trade, and we think that 
 the distress which our brethren in Maine will suffer 
 from an entire suspension of the internal coasting trade, 
 might be well worth the liberal attention of the Na- 
 tional Rulers. But we cannot but admire the singu- 
 larly ungracious means taken l)y our State Legislature* 
 to conciliate the government, from whom they have to 
 request a favor. 
 
 In what has been urged above, we can hardly be 
 said to have recommended a liberal construction of t'he 
 Constitution : we have only required that a fair ajid 
 natural construction should be adopted — that an Eeq- 
 bargo should be ranked in the class of defensive and 
 offensive measures, where the usage of nations has 
 placed it. If we had gone much further and justified 
 a much less literal adherence to the constitution, ire 
 
48 
 
 should not have wanted, if not a powerful argument 
 in itself, at least a very strong one ad hominem. It i« 
 indeed astonishing to see the principles of construction 
 now supported by Federalists, and to recollect those 
 that were advocated twenty years ago by Alexander 
 Hamilton, the author and finisher of their faith, and 
 which are recorded in his tract on the constitutionality 
 of the bank : principles of construction, which, who- 
 ever may at times have opposed or supported them, are 
 essential to the very existence of the Government. He 
 not only abandons the idea that a literal adherence to 
 the Constitution is required, but contends that the 
 clause which confers on Congress all power necessary 
 to carry into effect those specifically bestowed, is to be 
 liberally construed, and that the word necessary is to 
 be fairly understood to mean needfuL requisite^ inci- 
 dental^ or useful : — ^To exemplify his meaning he says, 
 '^ It will not be doubted, that if the United States 
 should make a conquest of any of the territories of its 
 neighbors, they would possess sovereign jurisdiction 
 over the conquered territory : This would rather be a 
 result of the whole mass of the powers of Government 
 and a conclusion from the nature of political society, 
 than a consequence of either of the powers specially 
 enumerated."* Another example of his opinion is the 
 
 * Much lias been sa'id respecting the unconstitutionality of erecting 
 L'luisiana into a state. It was in the debate on this subjel, that Mr. Quin- 
 cy first openly avowed that his political friends would dissolve the union, 
 *' (leiiceably if they could, forcibly if they must." We see I'roni the passag'e 
 quoted in the text, that (ieneral Hamilton supposed the United States to 
 possess tlie ris^ht of acciu'wlng' territory, and excrcisint^ jurisdiction over 
 it, without the limits of tlie original confederation ; and we are told by th« 
 constitution that "congress shall have power to dispose of, and make all 
 Heedful rules and regulations respecting the territory and other property 
 belonging to the United States." And one of the dispositions that con- 
 
49 
 
 power to erect corporations, which he was immediately 
 supporting;; and as a third example, it is worthy of 
 remark, that the very measure, which his disciples arc 
 now branding as unconstitutional, received in this vei^y 
 tract, the direct sanction of his high authority : — For 
 he says, *' Congress in pursuance of the power of reg- 
 ulating trade, may prohibit tlie exportation of commo- 
 dities ; though in doing this they would alter the com- 
 mon law of each State in abridgement of individual 
 right."* Though we think this power to lay an Em- 
 bargo more naturally deduced from the authority to pro- 
 vide for the common defence, yet the decision of Ham- 
 ilton is not the less opposed to those who deny in toto 
 the constitutionality of such a measure. 
 
 gress are authorised to make of territory is, to erect it into new states to 
 be admitted into the union. 
 
 The autliorlty of Hamilton's opinion on tliis subject is strengthened by 
 the practice of Washine^ton. We are told by Judge .Marshall, Vol 5, p. 
 278 that "Mr Carmichael', Chari^e d'Affalres of the United States, was in- 
 structed to press with great earnestness the claims of the United States 
 to a free navig^ition of the Mississippi, and to use his utmost endeavors 
 to secure the unmolested use of that river in future, by obtaining a cession 
 of the Island of New-Orleans and of the Floridas." Ce nest que le Jiremicr . 
 pas qui coute If the constitution will allow the acquisition of a small ter. 
 ritory tvithout the limits, it must equally of a lartje one. Or do they think 
 these acquisitions are to be holden as subject provinces, and if so will they 
 point out to us the authority for so holding tliem in the Constitution ? 
 
 If Major Stoddard is to be credited, President Adams entertained the 
 same opinion of the constitutionality of acquiring territory without the 
 limits, and intended to take forcible possession of \ew-Orleans as an indem- 
 nity for injuries received from Spain. (^StoddanCs Sketches of Ijomsiana^ 
 p. 101 ) Ml-. Jefferson certainly agreed with them in opinion or he would 
 not have acquired Louisiana. So that we have the authority of Washing- 
 ton, Hamilton, Adams and Jefferson in support of this opinion. The una- 
 nimity in favor of this construction of men that differed at so many points, 
 is no small argument for its correctness. 
 
 It was said of some apostate in England, that TA.'hen he lost his honesti/, he 
 lost his wits. Our separation Federalists, when they abandoned their princi 
 pies, seem to have parted if not with their wits, at least with their memory. 
 * See Hamilton 's VV(>rks, Vl. 1,. p 12.i. / 
 
 7 
 
50 
 
 The operation of the passions is always similar iu 
 the same circumstances. It is impossible to read the 
 history of the United States without being struck with 
 the perfect similitude between the spirit now influenc- 
 ing the Legislature of Massachusetts, and that which 
 operated in 1794' in the State of Kentucky. At that 
 time Spain had obstructed the navigation of the Mis- 
 sissippi. The distress created by this measure was 
 confined exclusively to the western country, of which 
 Kentucky was then the principal part. As the nego- 
 ciations on that subject were considerably protracted, 
 this respectable and flourishing State became impatient, 
 and sent a remonstrance to Congress, in which, to us© 
 the words of a judicious historian, they spoke ^^ the 
 language of an offended sovereign people, injured by 
 the maladministration of public servants. Tliey de- 
 manded the use of the Mississippi as a natural right 
 which had been unjustly withheld ; and charged the 
 government openly with being under the influence of a 
 local policy, which had prevented its making one sin- 
 gle real effort for the security of a good, which was 
 essential to the prosperity of the western people ;" and 
 " they insinuated that the continuance of their connex- 
 ion with the Atlantic States depended on obtaining the 
 object they sought.'' — It would be amusing and in- 
 structive to follow up the workings of similar passions 
 in the revolution, and other proceedings that have been 
 adopted in the two Legislatures ; but for this we refer 
 to the historian — Yet we cannot but quote with the 
 alteration of a single word, the very judicious remark 
 of that respectable writer. '^ When the mind inflam- 
 ed by supposititious dangers gives a full loose to the 
 imagination, and fastens upon some object, with 
 
51 
 
 which to disturb itself, the belief that the danger ex- 
 ists seems to become a matter of faith with which 
 reason combats in vain. Under a government emana- 
 ting entirely from the people, and with an administra. 
 tion whose sole object was their happiness, the public 
 mind throughout the country was violently agitated 
 with apprehensions of a powerful and secret combi- 
 nation against commerce — That those who were charg- 
 ed with these designs were as destitute of the means as 
 of the will to effect them, did not shake in the least the 
 firm belief of their existence." Marshall, 5. Yol. ;790, 
 Though we are far from censuring the Legislature 
 of Massachusetts for selecting the state of Kentucky 
 as a model for imitation ; we think the history of these 
 white savages, these stragglers of the forest^ as they 
 have been ingeniously styled, would have offered them 
 better samples of conduct than the one they have clios- 
 en. We should rather have seen our representatives 
 copying the ardent patriotism and enthusiastic valor 
 they have shown in the present war, than going back 
 to the mistaken and seditious proceedings of 179-i — 
 We should rather have seen our Governor, if he must 
 look to Kentucky for a model, form his conduct after 
 Shelby, than after Blount. 
 
 * This slander may do fur the ignorant back-iuoods men of Kentucky, more 
 ferocious than their savage neighhars, &c. Madison's War, p. 26. 
 
 On the same pag^e the autlior accuses Mr. Madison of declaring- tliat the 
 British Cabinet " have moukle ' and manai^ed their orders as might best 
 suit the political views of Great Britixin, her commercial jealousies, or the 
 avidity of British cruisers :'* and then he g-oes on to observe that, this is 
 illiberal. Why, my dear sir, if this l)e culled illiberal, the dictionary of bil- 
 lingsgate, that Scaliger picked out nf fii vv langua.ues, would ot furnish 
 A sufficient epithet for your abuse of the inhabitants of Ke tucky, and it 
 stands on the very same page ! But so it is wiih controversialwritcrs. 
 
 Caedimus, inque vicem praebemus crura sai^iuis. 
 
53 
 
 The men of Kentucky at that period, might have 
 alleged in palliation of their conduct, that the country 
 was in profound peace ; that no ohject more pressing 
 distracted the councils of Government, and that they 
 had a right to claim immediate attention and prompt 
 redress. But our surprise at the conduct of the Mas- 
 sachusetts Legislature of the present day is increased, 
 when we recollect they have no such excuse for their 
 proceedings ; that tliey devote the time when the na- 
 tion is lahouring under a war with the mightiest power 
 on earth in defence of what the government at least 
 call our rights ; that they choose this period to bring 
 forward their complaints of pretended grievances ; to 
 restrict the construction of the constitution to the bare 
 letter, in opposition to their own avowed principles 
 and the plainest common sense ; to infuse dissension 
 into our councils, and disunion among our people; 
 denying their military force to the requisition of gov- 
 ernment, and yet with perverse efirontery, demanding 
 their full quota of the very arms they refused to em- 
 ploy. Such men may call themselves what they 
 please ; they are not the friends cf peace. Men that 
 take advantage of public pressure and individual dis- 
 tress to harass their government, are not seeking for 
 redress, but are compassing their private objects. 
 
 And who are the men that we see resorting to such 
 means and pursuiug such objects ? Alas for the incon- 
 sistency of human nature. They are the very men 
 whom we have seen raising the loudest cry against 
 democracy, disorganization, rebellion and jacobinism ; 
 the very men who have recommended in the most 
 positive terms, when they were themselves in power, 
 submission to the constituted authorities. But tempo- 
 
53 
 
 ra mutantur. Federalists denominate the Union a 
 rope of sand ; the self-styled disciples of Washington 
 oppose the Constitution ; the enemies of Jacobin Clubs 
 have grown up into Benevolent Societies, and the- 
 successors of the Great anU General Court are apolo- 
 gizing for Impressment. Can such things be without 
 our special wonder ? 
 
 No. 4. 
 
 " The friends of peace are accused of being under British influ- 
 ence, but their accusers ought to reflect, whether partialities of 
 an opposite kind have not produced the evils we suffer, and 
 whether if our conduct towards both belligerents had been impar- 
 tial, a war with either would have been thought necessary. We 
 had assumed the character of a neutral nation ; but had we not 
 violated the duties imposed by that character ? Had not every 
 subject of complaint against one belligerent been amply displayed, 
 and those against the other concealed or palliated ? And had we 
 not, in the former case, been remarkably sagacious in discovering 
 insults, and equally solicitous in the latter to keep them out of 
 sight ? It has indeed been suggested, that we have no connexion 
 with France in regard to the war ; but when England and France 
 were engaged in a most arduous struggle, and we interfered and 
 assaulted one of them, will any man doubt our intention to assist 
 the other ? Some connexion seems also to be implied in the pro- 
 posal which was made by the French Emperor, that the Congress 
 at Prague should be composed of plenipotentiaries from France, 
 the United States, Denmark, and the other allied Princes on the 
 one hand, and the plenipotentiaries of England, Russia, Prussia, 
 and their allies on the other ?" 
 
 The charges that we have hitherto examined, have 
 been clear and decisive ; we have had opportunities 
 to meet the enemy on the open ground of law and 
 fact, and though we may not have succeeded in the 
 
54 
 
 conflict, we have had the satisfaction of contending 
 in the face of day. But we now come to an accusa- 
 tion of a different kind, that of French influence ; an 
 accusation dark, doubtful and mysterious ; addressed 
 to the feelings rather than the reason : an accusation 
 that does not admit of evidence, but resting on the 
 vague authority of suspicion and prejudice, gives am- 
 ple room for the imagination to operate, and create a 
 thousand visionary objects of terror, that have neither 
 relation nor resemblance to truth. 
 
 It is a great achievement in politics, to succeed in 
 fixing an imputation of this kind on the conduct of 
 an adversary. It is marvellous, and suited to the 
 popular taste ; it is obscure, and is not easily disprov- 
 ed, for a prejudiced mind converts the most inuocent 
 circumstances into occasions of suspicion. Such sus- 
 picion, like jealousy, makes the meat it feeds on. 
 This, therefore, has been always regarded by the op- 
 posers of government, and with reason, as their strong 
 ground. They are obliged to admit, and generally 
 do with some reluctance, that Grreat- Britain has in- 
 jured us ; that we have even cause of war. The Or- 
 ders in Council, since their repeal, have found but 
 few defenders ; and still fewer, we believe, are found 
 to justify the seizure of our seamen. We have even 
 the charity to believe, that were the federal party now 
 in power, and the bugbear of French influence thus 
 completely exorcised, they would themselves be so 
 far from surrendering our American rights, that they 
 would fight it out to the last, on the very principles 
 for which the government are now contending. But 
 after admitting the wrongs of Britain, they affirm that 
 these are not the real causes of the war. We are 
 
55 
 
 -assured that it is all juggle, trick, mystery, impos- 
 ture ; that more is meant than meets the ear. We 
 are told of an arch-magician behind a curtain ; of an 
 unseen, but fatal chain that binds us, we know not 
 how or why, to the car of Bonaparte. They would 
 persuade us, that we are entangled in toils which we 
 cannot perceive, and surrounded by invisible enemies 
 that we can neither meet nor avoid. 
 
 We have never been very great admirers of myste- 
 ries of any kind, and one would think that the pre- 
 sent age was not precisely the period to bring such 
 accusations before the public. But after all, when a 
 charge of this kind is made with that air of certainty 
 and assurance, which cunning or determined preju 
 dice know how to assume, it gains a certain credit 
 by its very mysteriousness. It partakes of the nature 
 of the imputations of witchcraft and sorcery, that pre- 
 vailed in other times, when the evidence required 
 seemed to be in the inverse ratio of the cruelty of the 
 punishment. To discern the folly and falsehood of 
 the charge of French influence, like that of sorcery, 
 it is only necessary to lay aside for a moment the illu- 
 sions of prejudice, and look with a steady eye at the 
 evidence that supports the charge. It will be found 
 absolutely a tissue of forced constructions and ground- 
 less suspicions, deduced from facts and circumstances 
 in themselves of the most natural and accidental kind. 
 
 We conceive of no way in which one government 
 can exercise an influence over another, but through 
 the medium of hope or fear. The love of independ- 
 ence is a natural passion, and is never overcome, ex- 
 cept by the expectation of some paramount good, or 
 the dread of some unavoidable evil. Let us look 
 
56 
 
 then, for a moment, at the connexion between France 
 and America, under the direction of this principle. 
 What have the free and independent people of Ame- 
 rica, by their Governors, to hope from the favour and 
 affection of France ? We are not aware, that there is 
 any one benefit to be derived from the friendship of 
 that power, that would induce tl»em, we do not say 
 to bow^ to France in slavish submission, but even to 
 surrender the slightest or most triiling prerogative. 
 The first motive, therefore, that reduces men and na- 
 tions to depend upon each other, has here no opera- 
 tion. Hope would never induce us to stoop to France, 
 for from France we have nothing to gain. 
 
 Another and a much more prevailing motive to pro- 
 duce the effect suspected, is fear. A nation so situ- 
 ated with regard to a stronger one, that it has much 
 to apprehend from the superior force of its neighbours, 
 is reduced, of necessity, to a virtual dependence. It 
 is compelled to regard in its measures, not only its 
 own advantage, but the w ill and pleasure of its pow- 
 erful rival. Tliis motive, how ever, can have in this 
 case still less operation, if possible, than the others. 
 What has America to apprehend from France? 
 When the prospects of the continent of Europe were 
 at the darkest, and there was some reason to believe 
 that Bonaparte might succeed in the subjugation of 
 that part of the world, we were still safe, not only by 
 the intervention of the pow er of Britain, but by the 
 rampart of waters that Providence has placed between 
 us and Europe. It w as even then but a possibility 
 in the third remove, that we should be called to de. 
 fend our liberties against France. Till the continent 
 was subdued, till Britain had yielded, we could not 
 
57 
 
 l)y possibility be compelled to repel the injuries of 
 France, supposing, what is but too generally the case 
 with all nations, that with the power she had the wish 
 to do us injury. But were that possibility, distant as 
 it was, and quite removed as it now is, reduced to a 
 certainty, and an army of invading Frenchmen already 
 preparing to assail our shores, the voice of American 
 patriotism would exclaim at once, that we had still no- 
 thing to fear. We do not deserve the liberty and 
 blessings we enjoy, if we are not able to defend them 
 against the attack of any invader, however poAveriul 
 or dangerous. From France, therdbre, we repeat, 
 we have nothing to fear. It is impossible, in the na- 
 ture of things, that any motive should attach America 
 to that power, any farther than sound American policy 
 and the best interests of the country dictate. 
 
 It has, however, been the fate of America and of 
 France, that they have had occasions of quarrel, at 
 the same time with the same power, which, in the na- 
 ture of things, must produce between t\vo nations re- 
 lations of amity. Opposed to a common enemy, it 
 becomes immediately the interest of both to cultivate 
 a mutual understanding. This connexion, having for 
 its basis mutual advantage, is of course defined and 
 bounded by that which produces it. If either of the 
 powers should so far forget its true interest and policy 
 as to avail itself of this connexion to injure the other, 
 the connexion that was advantageous, becomes de- 
 structive and ceases. It is a singular fact, that this 
 result has taken place between France and America ; 
 both enemies of England, though on grounds entirely 
 distinct, it was of course their mutual interest to be on 
 the best terms with each other. But France, so far 
 8 
 
58 
 
 from cultivating a good understanding with this coun- 
 try, has availed herself of the opportunity afforded by 
 the commercial intercourse of the two nations, to in- 
 flict upon us gross and flagrant injuries, without much 
 pretence or apology. Of this character are the con- 
 fiscations of our merchandize in French ports, on va- 
 rious groundless pretexts, and especially under the 
 Rarabouillet Decree ; the outrageous burning of our 
 vessels on the ocean : the Decrees of Berlin and Mi- 
 lan, so far as notwithstanding the assurance of the 
 French government they have really been applied to 
 us ; their evasive and deceitful conduct respecting the 
 repeal of those Decrees ; and in addition to all this, 
 the injury not less galling, though perhaps of smaller 
 importance, inflicted by the assuming and arrogant 
 language of the Emperor and his ministers. 
 
 It is impossible to say with certainty, what can 
 have given occasion to this conduct in the French 
 government so contrary, not merely to justice, (which 
 perhaps has but little weight in political concerns,) 
 but to the common policy of nations ; but it is proba- 
 bly owing to one or both of the two following reasons. 
 Napoleon either thought that the form of our Gov- 
 ernment being little suited for offensive measures, 
 might make us of no great weight as an active aMy, 
 and supposed that he should derive more advantage 
 from us by confiscating under certain pretences, the 
 large amount of our property within his grasp ; or he 
 suspected, that notwithstanding the injuries we had 
 received from England, that we were in reality dis- 
 posed to arrange ourselves on her side in the Euro- 
 pean contest. This suspicion has always prevailed 
 among the rulers of France : and it must be allowed* 
 
59 
 
 tbat however it may be, and we have tio doubt is en- 
 tirely groundless, a jealous mind might find some 
 foundation for it in the similarity of our laws and 
 manners to those of England ; in the extent of our 
 commercial intercourse with that country, and in the 
 attachment to it which a large, wealthy, and we may 
 add, very respectable portion of our fellow-citizens 
 have always avowed and even gloried in ; an attach- 
 ment certainly not unnatural as to the country of our 
 ancestors, and v/hich nothing but great and continued 
 injuries from that country could have prevented being 
 universal. One of the best proofs of the extent of 
 this jealousy and suspicion in the minds of leading 
 Frenchmen, is to be found in the Memoir of Talley- 
 tand upon American politics, read to the National In- 
 stitute soon after his return from this country. 
 
 But whether indifference, contempt, or jealousy 
 operated in the mind of Bonaparte to produce the 
 hostile disposition towards this country, that he has 
 displayed : although since the year 1805, we had be- 
 come by the injuries of England common opponents of 
 the same power with him, it is still true that he has 
 shown that disposition, and our Government were as 
 truly bound, though pressed before by one powerful 
 enemy, to resent it with proper spirit. That they 
 have done so, the slightest examination of our foreign 
 relations since the period just mentioned sufficiently 
 shows. In the year 1805, England in a wanton and 
 most unjustifiable manner, infringed the very rule of 
 colonial trade she had herself established, and swept 
 from the ocean multitudes of ships, that were sailing 
 substantially under the faith of her protection. The 
 indignation that^ this outrage excited among the mer 
 
60 
 
 chants and men of all parties, is not yet forgotten. 
 This of course became a subject of negociation, as 
 well as the grievance of impressment, even then of 
 very long standing. At the end of the next year, 
 France issued her Berlin Decree, and assured the 
 American Minister that it was not intended to operate 
 on American vessels on the high seas. This assur- 
 ance might or might not have been sincere ; but we 
 had a much stronger assurance that this Decree would 
 not be executed on the high seas in the utter inability 
 of France to execute it; in her total want of power 
 upon the ocean. Submission to a law or decree is to 
 comply with its requisitions. Had we complied with 
 the requisitions of the Berlin Decree, we should have 
 prohibited all trade with England. Was that the 
 fact ? So far from it, the trade between England and 
 the United States was never so extensive as during 
 the very year when the Decree of Berlin was in full 
 operation ; yet the English Government thought pro- 
 per to call this submission, and to found upon this sup- 
 posed submission their retaliatory Orders of Novem- 
 ber I8O7. 
 
 That France could never enforce against us the 
 Decree of Berlin, had such been her intention, was 
 clear from the first. The Government, however, as 
 became the rulers of a free nation, remonstrated with 
 spirit against it, as an insolent menace, or as having 
 been applied to our vessels in French ports ; and 
 when the embargo was laid, they applied it equally 
 to France and England. It has been urged, that as 
 the operation of the embargo was more direct upon 
 England than France, it was in that a partial lAea- 
 snre ; but on the contrary, it was in this most truly 
 
61 
 
 impartial ; because it operated upon each precisely in 
 proportion to the extent in which they had respectively 
 had tlie power to enforce their Decrees. It was, 
 therefore, whether politic or impolitic, just or unjust, 
 the most notoriously impartial measure that could by 
 possibility be adopted or even imagined. 
 
 The next year, the offer was made in the same 7/</r/i^#*«^ 
 to the two powers, that if either would repeal its De- 
 crees, we would make war with the other. If this 
 was not impartial, it is difficult to say what would 
 have been. After the interval of a year, France re- 
 pealed her Decrees ; for to declare publicly by her 
 Prime Minister that they were repealed, pledged the 
 faith of the nation to that fact ; and if the faith of the 
 nation is not to be trusted, what confidence could have 
 been put in a formal decree, of the execution of which 
 we have no stronger pledge than that faith which we 
 refuse to confide in. This repeal England was bound 
 to notice by a corresponding one, and had France 
 afterwards proved insincere or equivocal, it would 
 only have placed England on better ground than if 
 she were honest. We have already treated on the 
 subject of this repeal, in the first number of these re- 
 marks. 
 
 England refused to comply with her engagement ; 
 but as France proved insincere, equivocal and false 
 on the subject of her repeal, we were clearly nor 
 bound by our engagement to her to make war with 
 England. The obligation imposed by this alternative 
 was entirely at an end. But the time at length arriv- 
 ed, when the pressure of the Orders in Council, and 
 the determination to continue them, declared by Mr. 
 Foster's correspondence and the Prince Regent's pro- 
 
clamation of April 1812, called imperiotlsly on a free 
 and spirited people to take some decisive measure to 
 cause our rights to be respected, and war was declar- 
 ed. Why was England selected as our enemy, is 
 sometimes sagaciously inquired ? We answer, because 
 the injuries of England were immediate, operative 
 and real ; those of France consisted in empty menace 
 or contemptuous language. Why was the war carried 
 on about impressment after the Orders were repealed, 
 is anxiously demanded by others ? Because, we an- 
 swer, it would have been inconsistent to have laid 
 down our arms after obtaining redress for a part of 
 our injuries, without having the best security for the 
 other part which was really the most galling, most 
 vital, most essential injury. Yet we can no otherwise 
 justify the solicitude our Government have constantly 
 manifested for peace, and the promptness with which 
 they have availed themselves of every honourable 
 opening to negociate, than by recollecting, that by the 
 repeal of the Orders one gi'er.t difficulty was removed, 
 and that reasonable hopes may be entertained that a 
 negociation, once fairly instituted, would end in peace. 
 We have thus endeavoured to shew by a cursory 
 review of the politics of the last nine years, that our 
 Government have shown no submission or partiality 
 to France in any of their measures. Whether the 
 tone of their correspondence witli France has been 
 more conciliating than with England, we leave to the 
 decision of any man of any party who has compared 
 the letters of General Armstrong, Mr. Russell, and 
 Mr. Barlow, with those of Messrs. Pinkney and Rus- 
 sell, in England, or the correspondence at home be- 
 tween our Secretary of State and the Ministers of 
 
68 
 
 France and Great-Britain. One of the strongest in- 
 stances of the distorted view under which prejudice 
 presents every object on which it operates, is the use 
 that some have attempted to make of the letter of 
 General Turreau, lately published, as a proof of 
 French partiality ; a letter bearing on the face of it 
 suspicion, arrogance, unjust accusation, every thing 
 but cordiality and friendship. 
 
 Since, then, no possible motive can be discovered 
 or even imagined, for a corrupt partiality for France : 
 since, nothing in the public measures of the nation 
 gives the slightest countenance to the opinion, we are 
 bound from these circumstances only to reject it with- 
 out hesitation : but still more when we find the com- 
 munications between the Governments breathing only 
 distrust, discontent and mutual recrimination, it is dif. 
 ficult to imagine how the suspicion can for a moment 
 be entertained. We have no desire to retort on the 
 believers in French influence, a vague and groundless 
 charge, but we submit it to their candor, whether that 
 partiality for England which they make their pride 
 and boast, may not lead them to take a prejudiced 
 view of circumstances entirely indifferent — "Exces- 
 sive partiality for one foreign nation,'' says the Legacy 
 of our political father, "and excessive dislike for 
 another, cause those whom they actuate, to see danger 
 only on one side, and serve to veil, and even second 
 the arts of influence on the other.'' 
 
 We have now done with the subject of French in- 
 fluence, yet we cannot but add a few words respect- 
 ing the opinion expressed by the Governor in the par- 
 agraph succeeding the one quoted at the beginning of 
 this number, that a change has taken place in political 
 
64 
 
 morality since the French revolution. ''Previously 
 to that period," says he, ^* there was seldom an in- 
 atance in the history of civilized nations, in which a 
 Prince or Government engaged in a war without alleg- 
 ing reasons to justify the measure ; and though, in 
 some cases, the motives to the war were unjust, the 
 reasons assigned were specious, and in pretence at 
 least were founded in necessity. But the French 
 Emperor has thought fit to dispense with those forms, 
 and to wage war without even a pretence of injury." 
 We cannot help observing in relation to this opin- 
 ion, that in every quarrel, there must be at least two 
 parties, and that both of them cannot possibly be riglst; 
 so that if the aggressors before the French Revolution 
 were always on the side of justice, the party attacked 
 must have been guilty of some proportional injury, and 
 we really do not see, that this singular fact, if strictly 
 correct, would have much lessened the sum total of 
 political injustice. We must be permitted, however, 
 to question the correctness of the fact. We cannot 
 know, of course, to what length of time the Governor 
 meant to extend his remark. If, however, we go back 
 as far as the Crusades, we have yet to learn what 
 pretence oftiecessity there was, that the inhabitants of 
 two continents should slaughter each other on the 
 plains of Asia Minor, because that was the birth place 
 of the Prince of Peace ; or that Germany should be de- 
 luged in blood for two or three centuries, to settle the 
 question whether the Pope or the Emperor should pre- 
 sent the Bishops with a staff and a ring. Was it a 
 very specious reason for waging war in Europe with 
 i^hort intervals from 1518 to 1648, that an Augustine 
 monk bad preached against the sale of indulgences, 
 
65 
 
 or is the thirty years' war that occupied a part of thai 
 period more especially defensible, from its having beeu 
 occasioned by the right claimed by the Bohemian 
 States General, as a part of their common law, to 
 throw the deputies of the Empeior of Austria out of 
 the window. Without pretending to doubt the Go- 
 vernor's authority, we cannot but think it rather a spe- 
 cious than a solid reason why five hundred Spanish 
 soldiers should put to death twice as many millions of 
 peaceable Americans, that they were entitled to do so 
 by the right of discovery — Perhaps, however, the 
 Governor might mean to confine his remark to the pe- 
 riod, since the balance of Europe was settled by the 
 treaties of 1648 ; in which case we should be obliged 
 to admit, that Louis XIV. was justified in carrying 
 blood and slaughter into Holland, because he was dis- 
 pleased with the device of a burgomaster's seal ; that 
 Charles XII. of Sweden had very specious reasons 
 at least for killing every thing he could meet between 
 Stockholm and Constantinople, because Alexander 
 the Great had done as much before him ; that it was 
 at least expedient, not to say necessary, that all the 
 Sovereigns of Europe should settle at the point of the 
 bayonet, the real meaning of the last will and testa- 
 ment of a Spanish king, who was every thing but an 
 ideot ; that Frederick the Great had a good right to 
 Silesia, because the cession of it had not been con- 
 firmed by his ancestors quite so often as Magna Charta 
 has been by the kings of England ; and that France 
 and England were perfectly judicious in defining by 
 a seven years' war, the ancient limits of a barren pe- 
 nisula in North- Am erica. We must admit, that the 
 partition of Poland was extremely convenient, if not 
 absolutely necessary to the partitioning powers, and 
 9 
 
b6 
 
 that Russia is greatly to be praised for eaiTying on a 
 constant war against the Turks during the last century, 
 inasmuch as Constantinople would be a far pleasanter 
 port than St. Petersburg. Still, however, after admit- 
 ting all this, aye, more, we should entertain a lurking 
 suspicion, tliat the passions of men are somewhat sim- 
 ilar in all ages, and that kings and subjects are nearly 
 the same sort of animals before the French revolution 
 as they have been since. 
 
 Xo. 5. 
 
 The Governor ranks himself among the ^' Friends 
 of Peace." It was therefore to be expected, that the 
 prospects which have lately opened upon us of a 
 speedy conclusion of the war, would have transported 
 him beyond the limits of his usual equanimity. Peace 
 is in itself so lovely and attractive, that those whe 
 think themselves contending in the justest cause, if 
 they possess the feelings of men, look forward to the 
 attainment of it with wishful anticipation. Those 
 who, like the Governor, profess to doubt the justice 
 iud expediency of the contest we are now engaged 
 in, must feel a still greater anxiety, a still more ardent 
 wish for that desirable event. We are prone to be- 
 lieve, what we anxiously desire. It was therefore to 
 be expected, that the Governor would have entertained 
 with a ready and eager confidence, the pacific circum- 
 stances tliat have lately come to light. It should 
 seem, that when he arrived at the proper period in his 
 Speech, he would have detailed with complacency 
 the generous offer of tlie Emperor Alexander to inter 
 
67 
 
 iWft with his mediation. His partiality for England 
 might have induced him to say but little of the part 
 ahe has acted in this aifair ; but one would think he 
 would have delighted to mention the prompt accept- 
 ance of it by our Government ; their unsuspicious con- 
 fidence in the fairness of Kritain, testified by the im- 
 mediate mission of our Envoys. Nay, more; a gen- 
 erous enemy, when he has done injustice to his adver- 
 sary, is pleased with an opportunity of repairing it. 
 He would have said, " Gentlemen, for once our sus- 
 picions have wronged the government. We thought 
 the Russian mediation an artifice originating at Wash- 
 ington ; we must now admit, that for once the Govern- 
 ment were right, and that England and we were wrong." 
 
 Such being the sort of feeling we might naturally 
 have expected from the Governor on the subject of 
 peace, we iind with some surprise that his ardor and 
 enthusiasm evaporate in the following very cordial 
 and satisfactory period. 
 
 Js we are unable to ascertain the motives by which 
 the Government is actuated in prosecuting the war, we 
 ean form no opinion concerning its probable duration. 
 
 Really, Sir, this is somewhat singular. The mer- 
 chants, whose cause you so warmly espouse, and 
 whose character and judgment you, of course, are 
 not disposed to undervalue, have not only formed an 
 opinion, but reduced it to practice, though with great 
 temporary losses, and yet you cannot even conjecture 
 the probable duration of the war. 
 
 Our Commissioners are on their way to the place 
 of negociation. Men of such respectable character, 
 that unless you were to nominate them yourself, you 
 could not imagine any more to your mind ; federal 
 men, who have expressed themselves fully ^atisiio^^ 
 
68 
 
 with their instructions. Many difficulties in the way 
 of peace have been removed by the repeal of the Or- 
 ders in Council, and the passing of our act concerning 
 foreign seamen. Add to all this, tliat the appearances 
 of a general pacification increase the probability still 
 farther ; and this is the state of tilings in which you 
 cannot even make a conjecture about the probable du- 
 ration of the war ; this is a state of things so little 
 engaging to the mind of a Friend of Peace, that he 
 does not even think it worth mentioning. 
 
 With every disposition to form a charitable judg- 
 ment of His Excellency's conduct, we can see in this 
 silence no symptoms of a wish for peace. We are 
 obliged to look beyond that ostensible motive. We 
 inquire naturally, though unwillingly, is there not some 
 secret plan, best promoted by professing a desire of 
 peace, but very much assisted by the discontent and 
 distress that naturally arise from war ? For a sincere 
 lover of peace could not fail to rejoice in the appear- 
 ances of it that now present themselves, and a candid 
 man, after finding his suspicions so unjust as to the 
 Russiau Media.tion, would have been cautious of in- 
 dulging them again on the same subject. 
 
 The manner in which the Government of this State 
 have conducted in the carrying on of this war, is amo- 
 ther proof that they have no real wish for its conclu- 
 sion. No political maxim is more trite, than that for- 
 eign hostilities should be the signal for internal parties 
 to cease their contentions, and unite in opposing the 
 common foe. Such was the noble conduct of the an- 
 cient Romans. Such, to quote an example much 
 more seducing to our adversaries, is the noble co^iduct 
 of modern Britons. The very war in which we are 
 engaged, is a striking example. All the liberal, pa- 
 
69 
 
 triotic, and enlightened part of the people in G^reat 
 Britain, opposed, at every stage of their progress, the 
 iniquitous and foolish measures, that drove the United 
 States to war ; and were they now in power, would 
 be ready to make peace with us on our own terms ; 
 but these enlightened patriots have no notion of prov- 
 ing their love for their country by doing all in their 
 power to weaken their councils and disgrace her arms. 
 These very men are continually urging the ministry 
 to conduct the war in America with greater vigor. 
 We respect them for their manly patriotism. 
 
 Such conduct is rational as well as patriotic, be- 
 cause it leads most directly to peace. Whatever be 
 the merits of the case between the parties, the desire 
 of peace in either must be increased by finding that 
 its adversary assumes a firm and manly stand, and that 
 party discussion has yielded to love of country. When 
 nothing is to be hoped from force, they then begin to 
 think of concession. Do you think Great-Britain will 
 respect your claims the more, because your armies 
 have been disgracefully defeated on the western fron. 
 tier ? Or do you presume that the opposition to the 
 war will secure immortal renown, while dishonor 
 and obloquy are gathering round the standards of the 
 Union? 
 
 Not so. — Since the opposition are rational men, the 
 natural conclusion is, that they are not ignorant of the 
 consequences of the measures they adopt. They know 
 that they protract the war by enfeebling, dividing and 
 ■embarrassing the nation. They wish to protract the 
 par, that they may make use of the distress and diffi- 
 'eulty it occasions, to promote their private objects, by 
 creating excitement among the people. 
 
 They tell us of the pressure of the embargo, and are 
 ising every endeavor to stimulate New En 2:1 and to rise 
 
70 
 
 in arms to resist it. Is this the way that sage and en- 
 lightened patriots wonld conduct? Such men, if a meas- 
 ure that the government had thouglit for the general 
 good pressed hard on a particular section of the coun- 
 try, would respectfully represent their distress and so- 
 licit the equity of the nation for relief. But these pa- 
 triots have a different plan of conduct. They make 
 •aptious objections to the constitutionality of the meas- 
 ure, as if the power of laying an embargo was not 
 vested in every sovereignty. The reason is obvious. 
 If a measure be unconstitutional, we are justified in 
 resisting it : if it be only distressing, we can only so- 
 licit relief. Since, then, they must know, for they have 
 common sense, that the embargo is constitutional, nay 
 more, authorised by their own favorite construction of 
 the Constitution, and yet take measures the least likely 
 that can be to obtain relief from it in a constitutional 
 way ; we conclude of necessity, that they do not wish 
 the embargo to be relaxed. 
 
 No ; the War and the Embargo are the two best 
 things that could happen to them. For whether just 
 or unjust, such measures always create distress, and 
 private distress is the great engine in the hands of op- 
 position to make the government unpopular. 
 
 What, then, is the motive of the opposition, that now 
 agitates tlie Legislature of Massachusetts ? We must 
 look for it in the settled, long-meditated intention of 
 the leading federalists, so called^ of this State, to sep- 
 arate the Union, and establish in New-England aa 
 independent sovereignty. Ever since they found it 
 impossible to govern the United States, their daily and 
 nightly labours have been devoted to this favorite ob- 
 ject. This has been the subject of secret meetings and 
 seeret correspondences. For this they seize every 
 
71 
 
 moment of distress and anxiety to stimulate the people 
 and harass the 2;overnment. For this we see the news- 
 papers stained with disgusting misrepresentations of 
 our southern brethren ; for this our kindred of the west 
 are styled white savages and stragglers of the forest ; 
 for this the hateful cry of French influence is noised 
 about the country, and for this we are told of an anti- 
 commercial conspiracy, more chimerical than any 
 dream that ever passed through the brains of Barruel 
 or Robinson. 
 
 We mean not to ascribe such views to the federal- 
 ists at large. On tlie contrary, we have seen, that 
 whenever they have been distinctly developed, they 
 have been treated wit)i marked disapprobation by the 
 most respectable of that party. Hamilton, it is known, 
 was opposed to the project ;* and the country yet re- 
 
 * The folJowing letter was written by General Hamilton to a distingdish- 
 ed gentleman of this state the night before his death. The sentirtients 
 expressed in it must be considered therefore as liis solemn and deliberate 
 opinion, and as such, cannot but have much weight, with those who respect 
 his character. 
 
 New-York, 10th July, 1804. 
 The Honorable 
 
 My dear Sir, I have received two letters from you since we saw eack 
 other ; that of the latest date being the 24th May. 1 have had on hand 
 some time, a long letter to you, explaining my view of the course and ten- 
 dency of ©ur poltics, and my intentions as to my own future conduct. 
 But my plan embraced so large a range that owing to much avocation, 
 some indifferent health, and a growing distaste for politics, the letter i5 
 still considerably short of being finished. I write this now to satisfy you, 
 that want of regard to you has not been the cause of my silence. 
 
 I will here express but one sentiment, which is that Dismembehment of 
 
 OUR EmPIHE will BK a clear SACRIFieE OF GREAT POSITIVE ADVANTAGES, 
 
 WITHOUT AMY couNTEaBALANciNG GOOD ; administering no relief to our real 
 disease which is Democracy ; the poison of which by a subdivision will onlv 
 be the more concentrated in each part, and consequently the more virulent, 
 King is on his way for Boston, where you may chance to see him and 
 hear from himself his sentiment?. God bless you. 
 
 AX-BXANDER HAMILTON. 
 
collects with gratitude, the period when Dexter frown- 
 ed rebellion into silence by his commanding eloquence.* 
 Indeed, from the nature of the thins;, such a project 
 could never be held by the federalists throughout the 
 country ; and in New-England, cannot be entertained 
 by such as identify themselves with the party at large. 
 The whole merit of it belongs to a faction of tlie fed- 
 eral party, powerful neither in numbers nor talents ; 
 perhaps not more extensive than the exclusive six hun- 
 dred of Mr. Ames; but who contrive by intrigue and 
 art, by virtue of former services, and by keeping the 
 people in ignorance of their real views, to wield at will 
 the Legislature of Massachusetts. While the views 
 of federalists are directed to the acquisition of office 
 by constitutional means, the views of this faction are 
 directed to the separation of the States. The distinc- 
 tion between the Federalists and the Junto is perfectly 
 well known in town and country. It is mentioned in 
 conversation as a familiar thing, and yet this insigni- 
 ficant corps, whose power is almost wholly pecuniary, 
 
 We may remark that the plague of democracy of which the General com- 
 plains has shifted its position since he wrote. It is now raging with great 
 violenc* among the separation Federalists. 
 
 This letter proves that General Hamilton was deliberately opposed to a 
 separation of the States, and makes it probable that Mr. King was of the 
 same opinion. What is of still more importance, it proves that previously 
 to the year 1804, io a time of profound peace and unexampled prosperity 
 this project was in agitation. For the reader will observe that it is not 
 spoken of as a speculative question, but as a matter that was to influence 
 public conduct. We shall know from this what opinion to form of the 
 sincerity of the present movers of insurrection, who say that they are 
 forced to a separation by the miseries of war and embargo. 
 
 •A writer in the Daily Paper has referred us, with an air of triumph, 
 to the Chronicles of the town of Boston. We really never meant to in- 
 timate, that the speech of Mr. Dexter decided the vote of the Town- 
 Meeting in which it was delivered ; we only intended to be understood, 
 that a meeting was called to choose delegates to a Convention ; tlvat thoBfe 
 
T3 
 
 are permitted by the federalists to govern and guide the 
 party. ^ 
 
 In proportion to the distress of the times, they stim- 
 ulate the people to take such measures as shall accom- 
 plish this favorite object. It is often denied, frequently 
 insinuated, and sometimes openly avowed, as it was 
 by Mr. Blake in the debate in the Senate on the an- 
 swer to the Governor's Speech. But whether avowed 
 or concealed, it is still the darling object. It leads 
 them to the most absurd and strange inconsistencies 
 with their ancient doctrines of anti -jacobinism and ar- 
 istocracy ; for we find them inculcating in so many 
 words the " sacred duty of insurrection ;" contradict- 
 ing their favorite constructions of the Constitution ; 
 exalting the State Grovernments above the National, 
 and directly and indirectly attacking the Union, for- 
 merly their pride and darling. 
 
 But the people of New-England, whether republi- 
 can or federal, have too sound and good a sense to be 
 deluded by such shallow pretences. They cannot un. 
 derstand why the Union and the Independence, so ar- 
 dently desired and so long enjoyed, are suddenly be- 
 come odious and to be rejected. They know well 
 enough, when they are oppressed, and when they are 
 happy ; and the effect of the efforts made this session 
 
 delegates were chosen ; that Mr. Dexter opposed the project of a Con- 
 vention, an^ that (u»& Convention was never holden ; and we meant to ex- 
 press an opinion, that his opposition prevented the Convention. 
 
 Since these papers were written, this gentleman has been nominated 
 the Republican Candidate for the ofRce of Governor. It is underst9cd, 
 that he still holds the principles of Washington Federalism, and is willing 
 to discountenance, by his authority, the project of separation. He is a 
 man in whom federalists can place implicit confidence; and we really 
 hope, that the honest of tli.^t party, the friends of order and the Consti- 
 tution, will not scruple to unite with the Republicans in support of that 
 Union, emphatically the f^ivourite object of federal men and mea-sures, 
 and the palladium of peace and Jiappiness to us all. 
 
 10 
 
74 
 
 to stimulate them to rebellion, will probably end as 
 similar eflForts have done before, in the temporary 
 downfall of the party. They will then sink into in- 
 significance, till some future time of distress shall af- 
 ford them room to set their destructive energies again 
 at work. At such a time, their nefarious project will 
 again emerge to light, and some other Dexter will 
 ouce more frown it into oblivion. 
 
 Why will not sincere and honorable federalists, men 
 that love their country, if they must continue a system- 
 atic opposition, why will they not withdraw their con- 
 fidence from these persons, that have so repeatedly 
 abused it, and marshal themselves under leaders, in 
 whose integrity and judgment they can trust? If the 
 State of Massachusetts must be arrayed against the 
 National Government, let it at least be guided by men 
 that know and respect the Constitutiou and the Union. 
 
 We have now finished our remarks on the Govern- 
 or's Speed). With every favoraJ)le disposition, we 
 have found but little to commend, and much to object 
 to. The answers of the two Houses, if we had incli- 
 nation and ability to examine them, would furnish still 
 more copious matter for criticism. The spirit, how- 
 ever, is the same. They are respectively the root and 
 branches, whose mature fruit would be I'ebellion and 
 blood. Constituted as the Houses now are, it was to 
 be expected that tliey would dilate and echo the Gov 
 ernor's sentiments. But we may amuse ourselves a 
 ipoment with imagining what would have been the an- 
 swer of a Legislature animated by American feelings, 
 to such a speech as this. We may suppose, that after 
 noticing in a proper manner the incidental business 
 first mentioned, they v,ould have continued somewhat 
 fn the f(»]lov,'iui:; language ; 
 
76 
 
 May it please your Excellency^ 
 
 The Legislature agree with your Excellency in the 
 opinion you have expressed, respecting the right of po- 
 litical investigations ; and they hope you will permit 
 them to avail themselves of the liberty it affords, to give 
 free voice to their sentiments, though somewhat at vari- 
 ance with those of your Kxcellency. 
 
 In the remarks, made by your Excellency on the 
 causes of the present war, we cannot help observing a 
 disposition to justify Great Britain at the expense of our 
 National Government ; for admitting that the grievance 
 of impressment is as much exaggerated as your Excel- 
 lency supposes, we cannot but think that the illegal 
 seizure of a much smaller number of men than even 
 those who have been discharged on proof of American 
 citizenship, would be a thing of no small importance to 
 an independent nation. We are not aware of any 
 claim made by our government to exempt British sea- 
 men from their allegiance to their own country. We 
 presume your Excellency has some private documents 
 on this head, that may be the subject of a future mes- 
 sage. 
 
 With every disposition to comply with your Excel- 
 lency's intimations, we can hardly venture to hope that 
 any measures of ours will render less questionable the 
 Constitutionality of an Act, already unquestionably 
 Constitutional. 
 
 The observations of your Excellency on foreign par- 
 tialities, relate to a matter, whicli we had hitherto con 
 sidered, without the sphere of our concerns. At your 
 recommendation, we shall not fail to make it a subject 
 of inquiry, and if we should not succeed in proving the 
 friends of peace to be under British influence, we may 
 possibly attempt to discover whether those under Brit^i 
 ish influence are really friends of peace. 
 
76 
 
 We rejoice that your Excellency's historical inves- 
 tigations have given you so favourable an opinion of 
 the motives and conduct of the Sovereigns of Europe 
 before the French Revolution. That body of men have 
 been greatly aspersed by certain slanderous writers, 
 historical and moral ; but we feel the fullest confi- 
 dence, that the authority of your Excellency's opinion 
 will quite clear up their characters, and prove that even 
 when at war with each other, they were generally all 
 fighting in pure self-defence. 
 
 We condole with your Excellency on the unfortu- 
 nate uncertainty in which our prospects of peace are 
 involved ; yet we would respectfully suggest, that it 
 might not have been inconsistent with the character of 
 a New-England Governor, to have hazarded a conjec- 
 ture on the probable issue. 
 
 Your Excellency has shewn your usual judgment, 
 in making your solemn communication to the Legisla- 
 ture the vehicle of party feelings and opinions. While 
 we acknowledge the perfect propriety of this mode of 
 conduct, we cannot but anticipate with sentiments of 
 satisfaction, the arrival of some future period, when it 
 will no longer be necessary to address the Legislature 
 of a State in the language and on the topicks of ncAvs- 
 paper scribblers, and when the Speech of the First Ma- 
 gistrate may be confined, without danger, to the digni- 
 fied statement of tlie business of the Session. 
 
 END.. 
 
 BD-9 4 i 
 
 )3> 
 
 LB D '09 
 
' • • • < w 
 
 s- 
 
 A '^ 
 
 fy 
 
 %. 
 
 
 
 
 ' . . t' 
 
 ^0^ 
 
 
 .i:"^^ 
 
 )^ » ' * "- 
 
 **bv^ 
 
 
 ■-^ 
 
 O' 
 
 .V 
 
 .-i 
 
 vO- 
 
 .c(^\^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 ..•V /■> 
 
 ^^^ 
 
 
 ^U^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \. > 
 
 ;? -.s^ 
 
 |i"'!i'= 
 
 J, 
 
 
 
 1^ 
 
 
 
 > • * 
 
 c<^^- 
 
 ♦V/^^' 
 
 
 

 
 o V 
 
 
 
 ^^^^ 
 
 
 
 \* - * • 
 
 
 
 * T. 
 
 
 3^ ^.-'.'^- 
 
 
 % 
 
 '•'- ^c 
 
 .•i:^'* ci 
 
 . %*'-•> ^<.-*^^^.o^^ X'?.^^^ % 
 
 
 
 
 o^.l^%•^^ 
 
 .^ <i 
 
 c>, '« . » • A 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^°^*^ V 
 
 
 OOBBSBROS. ^^/l,* «J^. .-^ • V^JOfe*. V» <iC* *J\^,^/i*o 0>> «, ' 
 
 MAY BO^; .'i^V \^^*" ^♦^'V, -.^^; .^^% V 
 
 ST AUGUSTINE V^* f^ «^_ ^^^T* x^ ^^ *zQm^* ^ ^ ' 
 
 Im 
 
 >> -. ..^^ .:^i. -^-^ oo\.c^., -.