Part 230

This is, indeed, a difficult and unquestionably an interesting subject. Not that I place entire confidence in the sympathetic descriptions of the magnitude of the evil, which we have so often heard and daily heard in this House. I am inclined to believe fancy has colored the picture too highly. There is one reason, above all others, which leads me to that conclusion. It is this: In that section of the United States of which two-thirds of our seamen are natives, there is a strong, overwhelming current of opinion against this war. Can it be possible that the country where dwells the kindred of those who are said to be incarcerated in great numbers in the "floating dungeons" of Great Britain is not only indifferent about the fate of its children, but opposes, as ruinous, the war waged for their protection? It is certainly a curious spectacle to see the defenders of seamen's rights come from those portions of the Union that have little commerce, and few, if any, seamen. I do not mean to insinuate that those gentlemen do wrong in espousing the cause of the oppressed, to whatever quarter they may belong; but I state the fact to show that their sympathies may possibly have magnified the evil--and to infer from it, that the opposition of those most immediately interested is to be ascribed, not to their insensibility, but to their apprehensions that this war, instead of securing seamen's rights, will banish their seamen into foreign service.

The controversy between this country and Great Britain seems to have been brought to a single point. She claims the service of her seafaring subjects in time of danger. Our Government admits this right. To give effect to the right thus claimed and admitted, she insists that her officers may go on board our merchant ships on the high seas, or in her ports--search for and take her subjects. This our Government deny, and claim the immunity of the flag so far as persons are concerned; because, under the pretext of taking British subjects, American citizens are frequently taken. It does, indeed, not distinctly appear in the late communication from our Executive to the British Government, that they mean by the terms American citizens, whether it includes naturalized persons as well as natives. With respect to those of the first description, I confess I feel no great interest for their immunity abroad or on the high seas; I am one of those who think that we act sufficiently liberal when we offer them any asylum from the oppression or poverty of their own country, receive them into our bosom, and extend to them all the advantages belonging to us; and so long as they remain within our territorial limits, they shall, with my consent, have the full benefit of the protection which our laws afford to all. But I cannot consent that the native blood of this country shall be profusely wasted to protect aliens born, wherever they may ramble. We all profess a deep solicitude for the interest of seamen. To describe their distresses and to eulogize their valor and patriotism, is one of the topics of the day. And yet we are contending for principles which, if successful, will bring a host of foreigners in competition with them to elbow them out of employment. But it is said that Great Britain does the same--that by the act passed during the reign of George II., foreign seamen are naturalized who have been in the King's service for two years, and that she has no right to object if we imitate her conduct. It is true she has adopted such a regulation. But I have never heard of any instance where she has contended that such a person is absolved from his natural allegiance, if he comes within the power of his original sovereign. I have understood that act to mean that such persons should become entitled to certain rights--not absolved from any duties towards others, should they leave the country. That they should have the right to hold lands--be admitted under the regulations of the navigation act as British seamen on board merchant ships, and participate in the pension and hospital provisions. Should I be mistaken, however, I am not inclined to relinquish my opinion, merely because the practice of Great Britain is opposed to it.

Sir, I do not find fault with the Administration for insisting on the immunity of our flag, as it respects the seamen. I approve of the principle. It is of that character which at a proper time and with proper means is (in effect and to all general purposes) attainable, if we do not by ill-timed and imprudent efforts frustrate it. It is supposed that the present is the auspicious moment to insist on our rights. That pressed as Great Britain is by the most powerful enemy the world ever saw, who threatens her very existence; the impression which we can make upon her by our arms, will be greater than at any other time. This very circumstance renders the attainment of our object more difficult, and makes our case hopeless. Her danger forbids a compliance with our demands. In her present struggle, her naval power constitutes her security. Without that she would long since have become a French province. This every man in England knows and feels. It is well known that four-fifths of her seamen on board her navy render not voluntary but compulsory service. Should this principle be established, which in all cases would afford a secure asylum in our merchant ships, it is dreaded by British statesmen and the British people, that their seamen, allured by higher wages and easier employment, would abandon their service, and thus render their country accessible to their enemy. Hence you see every Ministry, of whatever political party or distinction, tremblingly alive to this subject. They dare not touch it in the present state of that country. No man could maintain his power a moment after having hazarded the public safety by making an experiment, the effect of which could not be foreseen, and may be productive of such disastrous consequences. This spirit is manifest in all the communications from the British Cabinet to our Government. We have seen the sentiments of Lord Grenville, Lord Auckland, Lord Holland, and Mr. Fox, men whose prepossessions were in our favor, and who on almost every other subject supported our pretensions. On this subject they resisted our demands, because they dared not grant them. While I conceive the claims of our Government as not going too far, I doubt their prudence as to the time and manner of giving them effect. I fear that instead of realizing our wishes the measures pursued are calculated to deprive us of every hope hereafter. In the present unexampled state of the world, according to my limited conception of our true interest, we ought to have seriously avoided all hostile collision with foreign powers. We ought to have cherished the resources within our grasp. Nothing is more obvious than the remark made by the honorable gentleman from New York, (Mr. BLEECKER,) that, with all the injuries which we received from the belligerents, our commerce was more extensive and more profitable in the aggregate than if Europe had been at peace. We might have obtained (and we ought not to have rejected) such temporary arrangements with England, (with whom our commerce was chiefly carried on,) which, though they did not embrace all our interests, would have secured those of first importance and kept us at peace. The benefits of such a policy are to my mind self-evident. Should Europe be restored to tranquillity and assume something like its former appearance, (and I do not believe the present state of things durable,) we should have been able to have effected every valuable object, because such a change will probably bring with it a respect for the rights of nations, which have now no existence but in name. And should an imposing attitude have been wanting to give effect to our claims, we should have exhibited an unbroken spirit and unexhausted resources.

An honorable member from Tennessee, (Mr. GRUNDY,) the other day, read some extracts from the instructions transmitted to our Minister in London, in 1792. His object was to show the deep interest which the great man who then presided over this nation felt on the subject of impressments. I sincerely wish that while gentlemen resort to his opinions to support theirs, they would consent to imitate his conduct. Nothing can be more strikingly different than his policy and that which is now pursued.

In 1793 the subject of impressments did not form the only complaint against Great Britain. The Treaty of Peace remained unexecuted on her part. To that was added the great injury which our commerce sustained by the extensive captures made by her cruisers during that year. The interest which was felt for the success of the French Revolution, against which Great Britain had arrayed herself, tended to excite the nation, even beyond the measure of its wrongs, and ripen it for war. But the wisdom of WASHINGTON saved us from being drawn into the vortex, which has since devoured all who approached it. His genius considered the true interests of his country to consist in the preservation of its peace; and he had firmness enough to preserve it, though opposed by the strong feelings of the people. Notwithstanding the accumulated wrongs which we had received, he sent a messenger of peace, and ultimately gave his assent to a treaty in which there was not one stipulation even to restrain the abuses of impressments, which the year before he had declared could not be longer tolerated. Why was this done by him, who, to say the least, had as much affection for his country's rights, as the politicians of the present day--whom fear never influenced--and who could safely calculate on the support of the people, should he resort to arms? The answer is obvious. Peace upon almost any terms was better than a hopeless, endless contest. What a contrast does his example present to the conduct of those who now direct the destinies of this nation, and who, while they reject his policy, resort to his opinions to support their own?

Upon the subject of foreign war, and the objects connected with it, the opinions of gentlemen of the majority have certainly undergone a strange revolution since they came into power. Little more than twelve years ago, they deprecated foreign war as inconsistent with the spirit of our institutions, and the genius of our Government. Nothing short of self-defence, when attacked in our own country, was considered as a justification for abandoning our peaceful pursuits, and mingling in hostility with European powers. Every other object was deemed subordinate to the preservation of peace, because with it was connected every benefit which it had pleased Providence to bestow upon us, and which our detached situation rendered secure. We now hear those very gentlemen talk of Rome and Greece in their proudest days, when they inspired terror into the inhabitants of distant climes and carried their arms to every quarter of the globe; and their example is held up for our imitation. The almost boundless extent of our territory is become too limited, and we hear of conquests in the North and South, as essential to our security and happiness. In taking a retrospect, and contrasting former opinions with present conduct, a person would almost be inclined to distrust his observation, was there not left on record monuments with sentiments of former times entertained by gentlemen in the days of humility, when they were struggling against power. Permit me to call your attention to a resolution of the Virginia Assembly, adopted in 1798, said to be draughted by Mr. Madison, now President of the United States, upon this subject. It was then considered the standard of Republican opinion, by all who professed to be of that party. It in substance declares, that though the General Assembly view with indignation the violations of our commerce, the impressment of our seamen, and other wrongs committed by foreign nations, yet detached as the United States are from European concerns, they should deprecate a war waged for any other object except self-defence, in cases of actual invasion. This resolution had an eye to our relations with France, from whom we had then received every injury and indignity she could inflict, and with whom we were in a state of partial hostility; but it explicitly declares, that we ought to engage in offensive war, for no object whatever. Let the sentiment be compared with the conduct of the same men now they are in power.

Sir, I am one of those who doubt our capacity to obtain the conquest of the British provinces. I believe that the opinion, that we are a very powerful nation abroad, is a fanciful delusion. To be powerful abroad, requires a Government of sufficient energy, not only to bring into action all the physical and pecuniary resources of the country, but to command them promptly. The very nature of our Government, where every thing depends immediately upon the people, forbids the idea that you can effect one or the other. The inconveniences and privations to which they must be subjected, are sufficient causes with the great body of the community, who do not perceive very distinctly how they are to be benefited by an offensive war, to turn their faces against it. Their Representatives, knowing their feelings, dare not press them with a heavy hand, which at once destroys every thing like energy. Besides, the want of promptitude, the characteristic defect of such a Government, whose powers are divided into many hands, prevents the resources even within their reach to be obtained and applied in time to insure success. The consequence of all this is--imbecility in obtaining, and want of celerity in applying the necessary means. This may be considered as a very great evil, particularly to those who have presented to us the example of Rome in her proudest days, when she was mistress of the world, for our imitation. Sir, I rejoice that such is the state of my country. It is the legitimate offspring of our free institutions. The people are strong and the Government is weak; whenever this state of things shall be reversed, then shall we be able to inspire terror into other nations. But until that period shall arrive, we shall exhibit weakness and slowness of action, as to all offensive and external purposes.

To retain the British provinces as an indemnity for our losses, is an event which I cannot wish, because I can see no possible benefit resulting from it. Have we not already territory enough? Is it desirable to incorporate with us a people composed of heterogeneous materials, who are not only unaccustomed to our institutions, but many of whom entertain an unconquerable hatred for them? I believe it would have been better had we never acquired any foreign territory at all. If we had been contented with the limits embraced by the old thirteen United States, the prospects of remaining a united people, and preserving our free institutions, would, in my conception, be much more flattering. I am, therefore, opposed to new acquisitions. But it is repeatedly urged that the possession of Canada is necessary to secure us from the hostilities of the savage tribes on our northwestern borders; was this the fact, I might yield my assent to prosecute the war to attain that object. But experience has shown that we can have peace with them, though Canada is in the possession of a foreign power. For seventeen years after the Treaty of Greenville we were entirely exempt from Indian hostilities; and not until we waged war ourselves, did they become troublesome upon our frontiers.

My apprehensions are not solely confined to the danger resulting from military power; there are other consequences equally to be dreaded, which I fear may overwhelm us, should we continue in this course. There is one peculiarly delicate, but equally important--so delicate, that gentlemen have supposed it ought not even to be mentioned. Sir, shall I not be permitted to point to the yawning gulf beneath? Shall I not attempt to arrest your progress in the path where lies a serpent that will sting you to death? I deprecate disunion as an event pregnant with every evil. The moment it happens, civil liberty is banished from this country. I feel deeply interested that it should not happen. Permit me, however, to observe, that a union is connected by a consciousness which is felt that the various interests of the different sections are consulted and protected, and not by force. If you wish to perpetuate the Union, you must preserve that opinion. The moment that it shall no longer exist, the ties that bind us together become feeble indeed. The present war, though ostensibly waged for principles in which the Northern and Eastern people have a deep interest, is considered by them--and they certainly understand their interest best--as calculated to prostrate it. They feel the evils of your measures daily, and they see no prospect that they ever will be benefited by them. The physical power of the country is in their hands, and it requires nothing but public sentiment, which quickly follows public interest, and you ripen them for a state of things most of all to be deprecated. I hope we shall avert the evil by banishing the cause of discontent.

Besides the immediate physical evils which present themselves as probably resulting from our measures, there are other moral evils which I must dread. Our Government was made to secure the happiness of the people, and every thing which even remotely is calculated to impair their moral sense, will have an effect upon their situation. When the people shall become attached to principles inconsistent with morality, or with their tranquil, civil pursuits, their prosperity and their freedom are at hazard. The spirit of conquest and of military glory, however fascinating, is baneful to the prosperity and liberty of every country. This spirit has shown itself in our country, of late, in an unusual degree. We have become tired of the peaceful character of our pursuits; and we want nothing but success on this first attempt to encourage us to become a great military nation, attempting conquest in every quarter. Whenever that happens, we shall share the destiny of other nations. When the same spirit and the same councils prevail, the misery of the mass of the people is the support of the national glory.

One of the evils which I dread, as attending the war, and in my opinion not the least, Mr. Chairman, is, that we have united our exertions with the efforts of the great destroyer of mankind, who, having prostrated the independence of almost every nation on the continent of Europe, has drawn us into our present situation, to assist him in humbling his remaining enemy, whose destruction is, above all others, nearest his heart. I do not believe that gentlemen are so far lost to all sense of their country's interest, as designedly to unite the destiny of this nation with him, who lives only to destroy. I believe them, when they declare that such is not their intention. But we are united in fact. His ostensible object is the liberty of the seas: so is ours. His successes are our successes, and his defeats are our defeats. Being thus associated in fact--having one common object--if the war continues any time, we shall be associated in name also. When pressed beyond our present expectation by our enemy, we shall not make any difficulty in submitting to arrangements which may appear to us advantageous, but which are calculated to fasten us to the car of the conqueror. We may want men to enable us to obtain the object of our offensive operations in the North; France can furnish them. We may want ships to defend our coast; we can obtain them from the same quarter. But, for these things, we must stipulate an equivalent; and what can that be, but to unite in striking England from the list of independent nations?

Mr. ROBERTSON.--Mr. Chairman, I am well aware that the House will listen (if it listens at all) with much reluctance to a further discussion of the subject under consideration. Nevertheless, it is my intention explicitly, but concisely to state some of the reasons, which influence me to support the measure proposed; some of the views connected with them, which command my approbation, and induce my aid. Sir, I propose to make a few remarks on the bill itself, and subsequently, without following gentlemen in the wide and expansive range of argumentative, declamatory, and defamatory eloquence, in which they have thought fit to indulge, to reply to some of the observations which struck me with most force, and which my memory still retains.

The honorable Chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs is entitled to the thanks of this House, and of the nation, for the able and lucid exposition he has given, of the plan intended to be pursued by the Government in the prosecution of the war in which we are engaged, and of the objects for the attainment of which an increase of the Military Establishment is deemed necessary. What is that plan, and what are the objects in contemplation? The power of the nation is to be called out; a portion for a defence of our seacoast and extensive frontier; the residue to be sent forth to battle against our implacable foe, to drive him from the American continent, and thus to insure our future peace, if not our Union and independence. These objects are avowed, and efforts and energy are necessary to their success.

The propriety of defending our country can be denied by none. This proposition is clear. Even the gentlemen on the other side of the House (as it is fashionable to speak) do not oppose it. For myself I do not hesitate to say, it presses itself on my feelings with irresistible force. When I take into consideration the exposed situation of the people whom it is my pride and honor to represent, when I view them surrounded by numerous and warlike tribes of Indians, skirted by strongholds in the possession of a nation devoted to our foe, containing in the bosom of their country a class of beings always on the watch to overwhelm them in ruin, I lose sight of other considerations, and am compelled to urge, as I do most earnestly, that no obstacles may be thrown in the way of our complete protection. I have lived for some years in the country to which I have called your attention. I have not been altogether an inattentive observer, nor indifferent to its interests. The neglected state of the militia under the territorial government, its present unorganized and unarmed state, have not escaped my notice. But we must "blame the culture, not the soil." The inhabitants are brave, expert in the management of the horse and in the use of arms. The materials are good. It is unnecessary to dwell on these, or to mention other circumstances of an internal nature. Suffice it to be observed, our situation is insecure. I have stated, sir, that we are surrounded by numerous and warlike tribes of Indians. I will not recount their numbers, nor blazon their powers of doing mischief. Those facts are too notorious to require repetition. I have stated that strongholds in our immediate neighborhood are in the possession of a people devoted to our enemy. The Spaniards on our eastern frontier are under their perfect control. They considered the English as fighting for the independence of Spain, their native country, their religion, and their King. In their towns an extensive British trade is carried on, and from their ports, where they refit, issue forth the armed vessels of that nation to the annoyance of the commerce of our country. The Indians too are excited against us. On my journey from New Orleans to this place, passing through the Creek confederacy, I received certain information that the Spanish commandant at St. Marks had assured them that their friends the British were expected soon in considerable force at that place and at Pensacola, and that they should be furnished with arms and other munitions of war to be used against the Americans. Sir, humanity to that people, as well as the irresistible claims we have to protection, require that a force should be stationed on the Mobile and Mississippi sufficient to prevent the effect of British and Spanish machination, or to throw back on themselves the evils of hostility.

I now proceed to examine some of the objections which have been made, not to the bill, but to the further prosecution of the war. The war is denounced as unconstitutional, cruel, the effect of French influence, and as intended to place James II. on the throne of America. In making the first objection, gentlemen could not have been serious; they could not have expected that it would have been deemed worthy of an answer. The power to make war belongs to all nations; is of the essence of Government; but the Constitution of the United States gives it expressly, in so many words: "The Congress shall have power to declare war, to raise and support armies." Whether the war be defensive or offensive, depends on circumstance and accident, but cannot affect the right. If war be defensive and offensive, still the whole is equal to its parts. But to what does this doctrine lead? Do gentlemen believe it to be true? Then it becomes their duty to move for the appointment of a committee to inquire into the circumstances of the capture of the Macedonian, and if it be discovered that she was taken at more than a marine league from the shore, to cashier the American officer, declare the attack and capture unconstitutional, and restore the vessel to her former master. Then an enterprise, giving rise to a new era in maritime history, and entwining round the brows of the United States a wreath of imperishable laurel, turns out to be a violation of that instrument on the sacredness of which depends the Union and happiness of America. The war is not unconstitutional, nor can it, by any possibility, be so considered.

But it is said that, as the Orders in Council are repealed, the question of impressment is the only one in controversy between the United States and Great Britain; and, on the subject, the honorable gentleman from North Carolina, (Mr. PEARSON,) has, without difficulty, settled principles about which jurists have differed in opinion. He contends that individuals cannot divest themselves of their allegiance; that the right of expatriation does not exist; that the practice of naturalization is wrong. These opinions are as erroneous as they are repugnant to every principle of human liberty, and owe their origin to feudal times and feudal States; times and States, the prolific sources of the vilest principles in politics and morals.

I believe that every civilized nation under the sun is in the practice of naturalizing foreigners. The omnipotent Parliament of Great Britain exercises this right. The rights of all independent nations are equal. Whatever course Great Britain pursues in relation to the subjects or citizens of other countries, these countries are authorized to pursue in relation to the subjects of Great Britain. Whatever her admirers may say to the contrary, if she does not acknowledge, she is compelled to act in conformity to this principle. Where is there in her history an example of her punishing as a traitor, a Briton naturalized by a foreign Government, although found in arms against her? If a subject could not divest himself of his natural allegiance; if once a subject always a subject, were true, how is it that Napper Tandy was suffered to escape punishment? Why was he not hanged as a traitor? He was born in Ireland, became a French citizen, served in war against his native country, was taken, tried, and found guilty of high treason; but when a terrible retaliation was threatened by France, in the event of his execution, that nation, which never yields to threats, restored him to his then adopted country.

But gentlemen are opposed to the further prosecution of the war. Do they contend that the causes which rendered it necessary have been removed? Have we obtained the objects for which it was commenced? Is the new and before unheard-of system of blockade abandoned? A system which, under the pretence of being a military measure, was converted into a commercial scheme beneficial to the belligerents, and destructive alone to the rights of the neutrals. Have our citizens been restored to their country? Is any disposition evidenced to omit tearing them from their homes and families in future? What will be the consequence of laying down our arms, of shrinking from our present attitude? We are at the feet of Great Britain: and after having for years attempted in vain to obtain justice, we are to recommence fruitless negotiation. Admit that we are unable to enforce our demands, to support our independence, that we cannot carry on war, that the friends of the British Government in this country (to use their own expression) will not permit us; in such a situation, with such admission, to expect justice would be folly in the extreme. England would return to her habitual spoliations, would re-establish that state precisely the most beneficial to herself, the most injurious to us: infinitely better to her than peace on fair terms, for then the opportunity would be lost of feeding and enriching her navy at our expense; better than war, as the numerous prizes brought into her ports of late very clearly prove. Formerly the losses were exclusively ours. Yes, sir, willingly would she return to, and forever continue, her former career of depredation; and the next ten years would add another thousand to the thousand American vessels already carried into her ports.

Too long did we suffer disgrace and degradation. Peace, with all its blessings, may be enjoyed at too dear a price. But yet, while it was possible to preserve it, we shut our eyes against the most flagrant injuries; we affected not to hear the loudest insults. Peace was congenial to our habits, favorable to the principles of our Government. It was not to be apprehended it would be, nor cannot be now believed that it was wantonly abandoned. Whilst tranquillity prevailed it was wise to dwell on its advantages. Now, that in spite of all our efforts we are at war, it is well to inquire whether circumstances may not grow out of it favorable to our future happiness and prosperity.

The British possessions in America present themselves to our view and invite a conquest. I am struck with the contrariety of opinion which prevails among gentlemen. Some of them speak of the country as barren, the climate as inclement, the inhabitants thereby scattered over the face of the territory. If this be true, it will not be considered as worth defending, and as by its loss Britain loses nothing, the sympathy which she seems to have excited, and the doleful jeremiads to which her anticipated disasters have given rise, are as unnecessary as they are misplaced. But others say, no doubt from its importance to its European sovereign it will be defended to the last extremity; that the United States cannot take it; that the army we propose to send into the field will prove insufficient. When gentlemen differ so widely, no satisfactory conclusion can be drawn from their opinions. Sir, Canada will be defended, and it is from a belief of that fact, and from a knowledge of the force which Great Britain may bring into the field, that the troops now demanded become necessary. We have heard an estimate of that force too often to be again repeated. It has lost nothing of its magnitude and importance. Its valor has received the highest praise, and we are triumphantly asked if we expect to intimidate Great Britain.

Sir, none but cowards calculate on the cowardice of their foe. We do not expect to intimidate her. We expect to meet her armies in the field and to vanquish them. The power of Britain must be extinguished in America. She must no longer be permitted to corrupt the principles and to disturb the peace and tranquillity of our citizens. Our frontier inhabitants must not be kept in dread and danger from her Indian allies. And never shall we be secure among ourselves, and exempt from the mischievous intrigues of Europeans, until European power is expelled across the Atlantic. The gentleman from Massachusetts says, that Canada entered into the scheme of the war. It certainly does now enter into the scheme of the war. Sir, no citizen of the United States would have given his consent to an unprovoked attack on that country merely for the purpose of getting possession of it. But I do, for one, rejoice that, under present circumstances, we thus have an opportunity afforded us, not only to make our enemy feel our power, but to drive him from this continent, and to remove one of the most frequent causes of war among nations--neighborhood and contiguity. The evils of peace, on the terms of gentlemen in opposition, cannot be borne. Let us then, with firmness, persevere in the contest in which we are engaged, until it can be terminated on principles compatible with the rights and honor of the nation.

The committee now rose, reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again.

TUESDAY, January 12.

Additional Military Force.

The House again resolved itself into Committee of the Whole, on the bill to raise an additional army of twenty thousand men, for one year.

Mr. EMOTT addressed the Chair as follows:

Mr. Chairman: I mean no common-place remark, when I declare to you, that I address you on the subjects which have been brought into this debate, and as I think properly so brought, with great reluctance. My general deportment since I have been honored with a seat on this floor, is sufficient evidence to you and the committee that I feel an unwillingness to mingle in the war of words which is carried on here. There are causes which add to this repugnance on the present occasion. The debate has been continued for such a length of time, and in part has been conducted with so much asperity, that the minds of all have become fatigued, and the passions of many inflamed. I know, and I duly appreciate the difficulties which, under such circumstances, surround and face the speaker. But, sir, there are considerations of public duty, and individual propriety, which urge, nay, demand of me, to ask your patience, and the indulgence of the House, while I present to you and to them my view of the great subjects involved in this discussion.

Mr. Chairman, I am aware that, in the discussion I am about commencing, I shall render myself obnoxious to the wit of gentlemen who think that, to bring into view other topics than those which arise out of the details of the bill now on your table, is to go beyond the range of legitimate debate. The bill contemplates the raising an additional military force of twenty thousand men; thus increasing the Military Establishment, or the standing army of the country, to upwards of fifty-five thousand men. Now, sir, with the details of this bill I have nothing to do. Nay, I will confess to you that I like the bill as it stands, providing for enlistments for one year only, better than I should were it amended, as has been proposed, by prolonging the terms, precisely for the reason that the force will be less efficient and dangerous, and more under legislative control. I meddle not with the fitness of the instrument. That is the business of other men; but, being opposed to the continuance of the war offensively, as I was to its commencement, I cannot consent to grant any further force to carry it on. The only check, or control, which the Legislature can constitutionally have over a war after it is begun, is in withholding the means; and, in voting the means, either in men or money, every member of the Legislature ought to be satisfied of the necessity of prosecuting the war.