Abridgement of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856 (4 of 16 vol.)

If, at so early a period, the right of search for men was objected to by this Government, how much more forcible is the objection now? We were then a young nation; we have since increased in resources by which our rights can be maintained; whilst the violation of those rights have been augmented in a greater degree. On the 6th of November, 1792, the Secretary of State wrote to the American Minister at London a letter, in which, when speaking on the subject of impressment, the following language is used: "It is unnecessary to develop to you the inconveniences of this conduct, and the impossibility of letting it go on. I hope you will be able to make the British Ministry sensible of the necessity of punishing the past and preventing the future." I know, Mr. Speaker, that there is danger of fatiguing the House by recurring to documents of this sort, but my apology is a good one: those to which I refer have never been printed for the information of the members of this House, nor have the public had an opportunity of inspecting them. I hope, therefore, to be indulged in pursuing the sentiments of former Administrations further on a subject of so much interest. On the 20th of February, 1800, Mr. Pickering, Secretary of State, addressed the President of the United States on the subject of a proposed treaty between the two countries, upon which occasion he makes the following remark: "That he transmits Mr. Liston's note of the 4th of February, together with his project of a treaty for the reciprocal delivery of deserters; which appears to the Secretary utterly inadmissible, unless it would put an end to impressment; which Mr. Liston seemed to imagine, while the seventh paragraph of his project expressly recognizes the right of impressing British subjects, and consequently American citizens as at present." Mr. Wolcott, Secretary of the Treasury, when giving his opinion to the President, says – "That the project of a treaty proposed by His Britannic Majesty for the reciprocal delivery of deserters from the land and naval service, does not sufficiently provide against the impressment of American seamen, and is therefore deemed inadmissible."

Mr. Stoddert, who acted as Secretary of the Navy, at that period, when advising the President on the same subject, says – "That the Secretary is clearly of opinion that it is better to have no article, and meet all consequences, than not to enumerate merchant vessels, on the high seas, among the things not to be forcibly entered in search of deserters."

The letter of the present Chief Justice of the United States to Mr. King, Minister at London, dated on the 20th of September, 1800, places this subject in a strong light; he says —

"The impressment of our seamen is an injury of very serious magnitude, which deeply affects the feelings and the honor of the nation. This valuable class of men is composed of natives and foreigners, who engage voluntarily in our service. No right has been asserted to impress the natives of America. Yet they are impressed; they are dragged on board British ships of war, with the evidence of citizenship in their hand, and forced by violence then to serve until conclusive testimonials of their birth can be obtained. These must most generally be sought for on this side the Atlantic. In the mean time acknowledged violence is practised on a free citizen of the United States by compelling him to engage and to continue in foreign service. Although the Lords of the Admiralty uniformly direct their discharge on the production of this testimony, yet many must perish unrelieved, and all are detained a considerable time in lawless and injurious confinement. It is the duty as well as the right of a friendly nation to require that measures be taken by the British Government to prevent the continued repetition of such violence by its agents. This can only be done by punishing and frowning on those who perpetrate it. The mere release of the injured, after a long course of service and of suffering, is no compensation for the past and no security for the future. It is impossible not to believe that the decisive interference of the Government in this respect would prevent a practice, the continuance of which must inevitably produce discord between two nations which ought to be friends to each other."

In another part of the same letter, Mr. Marshall observes, "the United States require positively that their seamen who are not British subjects, whether born in America or elsewhere, shall be exempt from impressment."

From these documents we clearly collect what was the view which the first and second Presidents of the United States had on this subject, and that of the principal officers of the Government. It appears that this exemption from impressment is no new claim set up by men now in power. It is as old as the Government itself, and there never has been, nor can there be, an Administration in this country who dare surrender this point to any foreign power. Once relinquished, we had as well abandon the ocean altogether. If the liberty of American citizens is to be subject to the will, not of the English Government, but what is infinitely worse, of every petty officer that navigates a British ship, it is in vain that we boast of freedom; we do not possess it; and only let the British Government understand you distinctly on this point, and you need talk no more of American commerce.

It has been said, by a gentleman from North Carolina, (Mr. Pearson,) that, if we exclude British seamen from our service by law, one of two things must happen – either a peace would be the result, or the people of this country all unite in a vigorous prosecution of the war. If I have mistaken the meaning of the gentleman, I wish him to correct me at this time, and answer the question directly, if, in that event, he will support the war? [Mr. Pearson explained.] Mr. Grundy proceeded: Sir, from the explanation given, it will, I fear, be as difficult to come to an understanding with that gentleman, as it is to accommodate the points in dispute with the British Ministry; for, although the gentleman says he will not surrender an essential right of the country, a question might be made by him as to what were essential rights. I will, nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, make one more effort to elicit the opinion of the gentleman on this subject. I ask him whether he considers the impressment of American seamen "a violation of an essential right of this country?" [Mr. Pearson said he so considered it.] Then, said Mr. Grundy, from the gentleman's own declaration he is bound to support us in the war, if the principle of impressment is not relinquished by Great Britain. I have no hesitation in saying that, in a time of peace, I am willing British seamen, not naturalized in this country, should be excluded from our service. I believe that such a regulation would inflict no injury or inconvenience on the country. Whenever, therefore, a proposition to this effect is made, so as to take effect at the conclusion of the war, I shall vote for it. I consider it a direct encouragement to our own seamen, calculated to foster and cherish the enterprise and industry of that important class of our citizens.

Thursday, January 7

Mr. Bleecker. – Mr. Chairman: I have a very few, very desultory, and I fear very unimportant observations to make on the subject now before the committee. They will be few, not because the subject does not abound with various fruitful and interesting topics, but because an indisposition of some days has unfitted me for any considerable effort of memory.

I was opposed to the war when it was declared, because I was confidently persuaded that the evils of which we complained were of a nature not to be remedied by war. I thought, too, sir, that by entering into war, we were plunging ourselves into evils a million fold greater than those from which we sought to be relieved. I was opposed to the war, because I thought that, notwithstanding all the decrees and orders of the belligerents affecting our neutral rights, we might enjoy a commerce more extensive and profitable than we could have in a time of European peace. The war in Europe was, in fact, a blessing to this country. I was opposed to the war, because I knew that the whole of one of the great political parties in the Northern and Eastern, the most commercial section of the country, which was most interested in the avowed objects of the war, openly condemned it; and I believed that a great portion of the other party was secretly opposed to it. This objection was to my mind perfectly conclusive. If there had been no other reason against the war, this was enough. What, sir, go to war when that part of the country which has most of its wealth, strength, and resources, is decidedly opposed to it! go to war for commercial and maritime rights, when the people of that part of the country which is principally interested in its commerce and navigation, openly execrate war!

It seemed to me that it became legislators who were disposed to exercise a paternal regard over the interests of the nation, to give up their own opinions, their prejudices and partialities, rather than go to war with a people thus divided. And permit me to say, sir, without any disparagement to the members of this House, that thousands and tens of thousands of the inhabitants of that part of the country of which I have been speaking, are as competent to understand the true interest and honor of the nation, as gentlemen who happen to be members of Congress.

I was opposed to the war, because I thought it might expose our happy form of Government – our excellent political institutions – to a dangerous trial. I was afraid, sir, that the war might produce a pressure upon the Government which it would not be able to sustain. I was opposed to the war, and this was the bitter draught, because it brought us into concert and co-operation with the great destroyer, the grand enemy of freedom and humanity throughout the world. I was opposed to the war, because I believed the state of things in Europe, out of which our difficulties arose – a state of things which the United States had no power to control – was in its nature transient. Rather than plunge ourselves into the vortex of European politics; rather than encounter the evils and dangers of war, I thought it would be wise and prudent to wait until "the troubled waters should subside, and the ancient landmarks of the world reappear above the flood;" with a living statesman, I thought I saw in the very cloud which blackened all our horizon, the bow which was set for a token, that the tempest would not be forever.

But, sir, war was declared, and the doctrine has since been promulgated, that it is now the duty of every man to support it; that all inquiry must be hushed, and all examination of its expediency and propriety cease. So far as this doctrine inculcates obedience to the laws, it has my cordial approbation; but inasmuch as it denies the right of the citizen to examine into the causes of the war, to express and publish his opinions respecting its policy, it is an insult to the understanding of an intelligent people, and inconsistent with the character and spirit of the constitution. War is declared by law. How shall the law be repealed? How can we get rid of the war, if we may not say that it is inexpedient, impolitic, and ruinous? How abominable the doctrine is, that the declaration of war shuts the door against all inquiry, is manifest from the consideration, that it would enable a wicked Administration to perpetuate its power by declaring war. Again, sir, I would ask the advocates of the doctrine I am reprobating, when will it be proper to show the folly and ruinous consequences of the war? Suppose the war to have continued five or ten years, and the country to be impoverished, its commerce annihilated, its resources exhausted, its best blood expended in wild and fruitless projects of conquest, the people oppressed by debts and taxes, will it then be deemed improper to expose the absurdity and mischief of continuing the war? Surely, sir, it will be patriotic and laudable to alarm the people, to entreat them to put an end to that which is the cause of their calamities. And if such conduct will then be proper, it must be laudable and patriotic now to show them their evils and dangers, and to point them to the means of escape.

But, sir, what has been the state of the country since the declaration of war? I speak again in reference to public opinion. The people of the North and East have poured out their feelings and opinions, their complaints and groans, in addresses, petitions, resolutions, and remonstrances against the war. Look, sir, at the Presidential election, and you see all the Northern and Eastern States; with the exception of Vermont, arrayed against the Administration. You see the people disregarding the old line of party division and distinction. Yes, sir, in spite of such division and distinction, "burying their mutual animosities," their ancient prejudices, "in their common detestation" of the policy of the Government, rising up in their might and strength to manifest their hostility to the course of measures it has pursued. This, Mr. Chairman, is a state of things which ought to arrest the attention, and engage the reflection of the National Legislature, for without that section of country our strength is weakness. I know how ungracious and invidious topics of this kind are to some gentlemen. But, sir, we cannot help it that the country is made up of sections. We are legislating for such a country, and it is our business and duty to regard the circumstances, the interests, and feelings of the people of different parts of the Union. We declared war for commerce; the people most interested in commerce were opposed to it. We continue the war for sailors' rights, and three-fourths of our native American seamen belong to New York and the Eastern States, the people of which are sighing for peace. It ought to be remembered, too, sir, that the war itself must have the effect of driving a vast portion of our sailors out of the country into foreign service.

But, Mr. Chairman, whatever may have been the reasons for declaring war, the question is not now what it was when war was declared. Our relations with the belligerents have materially and essentially changed. So much have they changed, that I declare, without fear of contradiction, that had they been on the 17th of June last what they now are, we should not have gone to war. I hope no gentleman of this committee will deny this. But if any gentleman should deny it, the nation will not believe him. Sir, we have received new, important, and interesting evidence of the true state of our foreign relations since the declaration of war. Facts which were then unknown, and which have shed a flood of light upon the situation and policy of the United States, have since been published to the world. The repeal of the Orders in Council itself, by removing the principal cause of the war, has produced a most material change; for had they been repealed before the war was declared, there would have been no war; and let it be remembered, that they were repealed before the war was known in England. But this is not all to which I refer. I mean to speak of the evidence we have received respecting our relations with France; and I hope gentlemen will not be startled or offended by what I am about to say. I declare confidently and boldly that Napoleon has inveigled us into the war. He has cajoled and deceived us. But for his arts, intrigues, and duplicity, the United States would not now have been at war with Great Britain. Yes, sir, he has led us on step by step, until he brought us to the edge of the precipice, and plunged us into the abyss. We have been humbled and mortified. He has triumphed over our character, our honor, our rights, our independence. I do not say these things hastily, carelessly, or lightly. And I will add, that after the discovery of the deceit and duplicity which the Emperor of France has practised upon us, it became the duty of this Government to go back to the ground it occupied before the President's proclamation of November, 1810, or to declare immediate war against France. A proper regard to the honor, the character, and independence of the country, demanded this of its Government.

Sir, the proof of what I have said is plain; and it is time that it be stated here, and spread before the nation. I beg the attention of the committee to the facts on which it rests. I need not go back farther than to the law of May, 1810, which provided that the non-intercourse act should cease, as to that belligerent which should first repeal its decrees violating our neutral rights, and that it should operate on the other, which should fail so to do, within three months after the President's proclamation of the fact of such repeal. This law, and the conduct of the President under it, are the immediate cause of the war, and the present unhappy state of the country. On the 5th of August, 1810, the Duke de Cadore wrote his famous letter to General Armstrong, the American Minister in Paris, stating that the Berlin and Milan decrees would, upon certain conditions, cease on the first of November then next. On the authority of this letter, the President of the United States issued his proclamation, declaring the fact, that the French decrees were repealed. But the British Government, not considering the letter of the Duke de Cadore sufficient evidence of their repeal, did not revoke their Orders in Council, and, in consequence, our non-intercourse act went into operation against Great Britain the February following. Notwithstanding the proclamation of the President, great doubts existed in this country, whether the French decrees were in fact repealed. To remove these doubts, to confirm the proclamation, to prevent inquiry and investigation in the judicial tribunals of the country, the act of March, 1811, was passed. Yet, sir, it has ever since been denied that the decrees of Berlin and Milan were repealed. The public prints have teemed, and the tables of this House have been loaded with the proofs of their existence and execution. You remember, sir, an impressive argument, in many respects original, an unanswered and unanswerable argument of the honorable gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Randolph) on this subject in this House, towards the close of the last session. But, sir, notwithstanding all this, this Government persisted in declaring that the French decrees were repealed. I do not mean to discuss that stale matter. The statement I make is necessary to my present purpose. The question of their repeal was the subject of a very voluminous and long-continued correspondence between Mr. Foster, the British Minister, and our Secretary of State. The discussion, I believe, was protracted to the last moment of peace. War was declared on the 18th of June. Some weeks afterwards, appeared in this country a decree of Napoleon, issued in May last, and bearing date the 28th of April, 1811. This is an extraordinary paper, and deserves some attention. I will read it:

"April 28, 1813.

"Napoleon, Emperor of the French, &c

"On the report of our Minister of Foreign Relations:

"Seeing, by a law passed 2d March, 1811, the Congress has ordered the execution of the provisions of the act of non-intercourse, which prohibits the vessels and merchandise of Great Britain, her colonies and dependencies, from entering the ports of the United States.

"Considering that the said law is an act of resistance to the arbitrary pretensions consecrated by; the British Orders in Council, and a formal refusal to adhere to a system invading the independence of neutral powers and of their flag; we have ordered, and do decree, as follows:

"The decrees of Berlin and Milan are definitively, and to date, from 1st November last, considered as not existing in regard to American vessels."

Now, sir, did this decree exist at the time of its date? No, sir, the date is false. If the decree existed in April, 1811, why was it not communicated to this nation, the only one interested in the subject? Why was it not communicated to Mr. Russell, who so strongly urged upon the French Government the necessity of furnishing some evidence of the repeal of the decrees. For the purpose of communicating some satisfactory information on that subject to this country, he detained the John Adams in France, in July, 1811. You will remember Napoleon's decree is dated in April. Permit me here to read a passage of Mr. Russell's letter to Mr. Monroe, dated the 15th of July, 1811.

"On the 14th of June, Mr. Hamilton, of the John Adams, reached Paris, and informed me that this vessel had arrived at Cherbourg. Unwilling to close my despatches by her, without being able to communicate something of a more definite and satisfactory character than any thing which had hitherto transpired, I immediately called at the Office of Foreign Relations, but, the Minister being at St. Cloud, I was obliged to postpone the interview which I sought until the Tuesday following. At this interview, I stated to him the arrival of the frigate, and my solicitude to transmit by her to the United States some act of this Government, justifying the expectation with which the important law which she had brought hither had, undoubtedly, been passed."

After Mr. Russell had left Paris, he wrote from England to Mr. Barlow, who succeeded him, "for additional proofs of the removal of the decrees." Mr. Barlow seems to be very anxious "to get the treaty through, carrying an unequivocal stipulation, that shall lay that question to rest."

But it was all in vain; no authentic evidence of the repeal was furnished. This decree did not exist; and why was it not issued? Why was the evidence of the repeal of the decrees withheld? The answer is obvious. The United States were not yet committed to go to war with Great Britain. Napoleon knew very well that when proper evidence of the repeal of his decrees was furnished, the English Orders in Council would be repealed, and the United States would not go to war with Great Britain. For, sir, he knew very well, and we know very well, that for the subject of impressments alone, this country would not go to war. It cannot be denied, that for this cause we should not have declared war. This Government has never been disposed to go to war on that ground alone. The present President of the United States made an arrangement with Mr. Erskine, which gladdened the heart of every man in the nation, without any provision on that subject, without any mention of it; and there was not a murmur in the country, on account of its omission. Mr. Pinkney, too, as stated by the gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. Troup,) yesterday, again and again, offered to accommodate with England, on the rescinding of the Orders in council, without any reference to impressments.

Sir, this decree itself is an insult to this Government. It is issued expressly, because we had taken our stand against England; it is declared to be issued in consequence of our act of March, 1811, when, in fact, the President's proclamation and the act of March were founded on the repeal of the decrees. To show the correctness of my remarks on this part of the subject; to show that Napoleon has triumphed over our honor and character, I beg leave to call the attention of the committee to Mr. Russell's letter to Mr. Monroe, dated the 9th of June, 1811. His language does credit to his understanding and feelings:

"To have waited for the receipt of the proclamation, in order to make use of it for the liberation of the New Orleans Packet, appeared to me a preposterous and unworthy course of proceeding, and to be nothing better than absurdly and basely employing the declaration of the President, that the Berlin and Milan decrees had been revoked, as the means of obtaining their revocation. I believed it became me to take higher ground, and without confining myself to the mode best calculated to recover the property, to pursue that which the dignity of the American Government required.

"A crisis, in my opinion, presented itself, which, was to decide whether the French edicts were retracted as a preliminary to the execution of our law; or whether, by the non-performance of one party, and the prompt performance of the other, the order in which these measures ought to stand was to be reversed, and the American Government shuffled into the lead, where national honor and the law required it to follow."

It would have been base to have employed the President's proclamation, that the Berlin and Milan decrees had been revoked as the means of obtaining their revocation. But what, sir, is the price we have at length paid for the repeal? The President's proclamation was not enough; the act of March added to it was not enough; we could not procure the revocation till we went to war. For, sir, the Emperor would not issue this decree till he knew that we were pledged and committed to go to war with Great Britain. How he knew this, sir, it is not for me to say. We all know, however, that he had all the acts of this Government to satisfy him of the course we were pursuing – the step we were about to take. He had the President's Message, the report of the Committee on Foreign Relations, the war speeches of the members of this House, the laws for raising armies, and the embargo. In the month of May, then, when the policy of this country in relation to Great Britain was settled, he issued his decree, just in such time, too, sir, that it could not reach this country till we had plunged into the war. And well, in such a state, might he repeal his decrees, which, by the war itself, would be superseded – would become a nullity.