Speeches of John C. Calhoun : delivered in the Congress of the United States from 1811 to the present time

Front matter

Tlie Institute of Museum and Library Services through an Indiana State Library LSTA Grant

H. E. BARKER

(Lincolniana

Contents

Page

I. Delivered in the House of Representatives, December 19, 1811, in the Debate on the Second Resolution reported by the Committee of Foreign

Relations 'J

I

DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, DECEMBER 19, 1811, IN THE DEBATE ON THE SECOND RESOLUTION REPORTED BY THE COMMITTEE OF FOR- EIGN RELATIONS.

Mr. Speaker — I understood the opinion of the Committee of Foreign Relations differently from what the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Randolph) has stated to be his impression. I certainly understood that the committee recommended the measures now before the house as a preparation for war ; and such, in fact, was its express resolve, agreed to, I believe, by every member except that gentleman. I do not attribute any wilful misstatement to him, but consider it the effect of inadvertency or mistake. Indeed, the report could mean nothing but war or empty menace. I hope no member is in favour of the latter. A bullying, menacing system has everything to condemn and nothing to recommend it — in expense it almost rivals war. It excites contempt abroad and destroys confidence at home. Menaces are serious things, which ought to be resorted to with as much caution and seriousness as war itself; and should, if not successful, be invariably followed by war. It was not the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Grundy) that made this a war question. The resolve contemplates an additional regular force ; a measure confessedly improper but as a preparation for war, but undoubtedly necessary in that event. Sir, I am not insensible to the weighty importance of this question, for the first time submitted to this house, to compel a redress of our long list of complaints against one of the belligerants. According to my mode of thinking, the more serious the question, my conviction to support it must be the stronger and more unalterable. War, in our country, ought never to be resorted to but when it is clearly justifiable and necessary ; so much so as not to require the aid of logic to convince our understanding, nor the ardour of eloquence to inflame our passions. There are many reasons why this country should never resort to it but for causes the most urgent and necessary. It is sufficient that, under a government like ours, none but such will justify it in the eyes of the people ; and were I not satisfied that such is the present case, I certainly would be no advocate of the proposition now before the house.

Sir, I might prove the war, should it follow, to be justifiable, by the express admission of the gentleman from Virginia ; and necessary, by facts imdoubted and universally admitted, such as he did not attempt to controvert. The extent, duration, and character of the injuries received ; the failure ot' those peaceful means heretofore resorted to for the redress of our wrongs, are my proofs that it is necessary. Why should I mention the impressment of our seamen — depredation on every branch of our commerce, including tlie direct export trade, continued for years, and made under laws which professedly undertake to regulate our trade with other nations ? negotiation, resorted to again and again, till it became hopeless, and the restrictive system persisted in to avoid war, and in the vain expectation of returning justice ? The evil still continued to grow, so that each succeeding year exceeded in enormity the preceding. The question, even in the opinion and admission of our opponents, is reduced to this sin-

B gle point : Which shall we do, abandon or defend our own commercial and maritime rights, and the personal liberties of our citizens employed in exercising them 1 These rights are vitally attacked, and war is the only means of redress. The gentleman from Virginia has suggested none, unless we consider the whole of his speech as recommending patient and resigned submission as the best remedy. It is for the house to decide which of the alternatives ought to be embraced. I hope the decision is made already, by a higher authority than the voice of any man. It is not in the power of speech to infuse the sense of independence and honour. To resist wrong is the instinct of nature ; a generous nature, that disdains tame submission.

This part of the subject is so imposing as to enforce silence even on the gentleman from Virginia. He dared not to deny his country's wrongs, or vindicate the conduct of her enemy. But one part only of his argument had any, the most remote relation to this point. He would not say that Ave had not a good cause for war, but insisted that it was our duty to define that cause. If he means that this house ought, at thi^ stage of its proceedings, or any other, to specify any particular violation of our rights to the exclusion of all others, he prescribes a course which neither good sense nor the usage of nations warrants. When we contend, let us contend for all our rights — the doubtful and the certain, the unimportant and essential. It is as easy to contend, or even more so, for the whole as for a part. At the termination of the contest, secure all that our wisdom, and valour, and the fortune of war will permit. This is the dictate of common sense, and such, also, is the usage of nations. The single instance alluded to, the endeavour of Mr. Fox to compel Mr. Pitt to define the object of the war against France, will not support the gentleman from Virginia in his position. That was an extraordinary war for an extraordinary purpose, and Avas not governed by the usual rules. It was not for conquest or for redress of injury, but to impose a government on France which she refused to receive — an object so detestable that an avowal dare not be made.

I might here rest the question. The affirmative of the proposition is established. I cannot but advert, however, to the complaint of the gentleman from Virginia when he was first up on this question. He said he found himself reduced to the necessity of supporting the negative side of the question before the affirmative was established. Let me tell that gentleman that there is no hardship in his case. It is not every affirmative that ought to be proved. Were I to affirm that the house is now in session, would it be reasonable to ask for proof? He who would deny its truth, on him would be the proof of so extraordinary a negative. How, then, could the gentleman, after his admissions, and with the facts before him and the nation, complain 1 The causes are such as to warrant, or, rather, to make it indispensable in any nation not absolutely dependant to defend its rights by arms. Let him, then, show the reasons Avhy we ought not so to defend ourselves. On him, then, is the burden of proof. This he has attempted. He has endeavoured to support his negative. Before I proceed to answer him particularly, let me call the attention of the house to one circumstance, that almost the whole of his arguments consisted of an enumeration of evils always incident to war, however just and necessary ; and that, if they have any force, it is calculated to produce unqualified submission to every species of insult and injury. I do not feel myself bound to answer arguments of that description, and if I should allude to them, it will be only incidentally, and not for the purpose of serious refutation.

The first argument which I shall notice is the unprepared state of the country. Whatever weight this argument might have in a question of immediate war, it surely has little in that of preparation for it. If our country is unprepared, let us prepare as soon as possible. Let the gentleman submh his plan, and if a reasonable one, I doubt not it will be supported by the house. But, sir, let us admit the fact with the whole force of the argument ; I ask, whose is the fault ? Who has been a member for many years past, and has seen the defenceless state of his country, even near home, under his own eyes, without a single endeavour to remedy so serious an evil ? Let him not say " I have acted in a minority." It is no less the duty of the minority than a majority to endeavour to defend the country. For that purpose principally we are sent here, and not for that of opposition.

We are next told of the expenses of the war, and that the people will not pay taxes. Why not ? Is it a want of means ? What, with 1,000,000 tons of shipping; a commerce of $100,000,000 annually; manufactures yielding a yearly product of $150,000,000, and agriculture thrice that amount; shall we, with such great resources, be told that the country wants ability to raise and support 10,000 or 15,000 additional regulars? No : it has the ability, that is admitted ; but will it not have the disposition 1 Is not our course just and necessary ? Shall we, then, utter this libel on the people ? Where will proof be found of a fact so disgraceful ? It is said, in the history of the country twelve or fifteen years ago. The case is not parallel. The ability of the country is greatly increased since. The whiskey tax was unpopular. But, as well as my memory serves me, the objection was not so much to the tax or its amount as the mode of collecting it. The people were startled by the host of officers, and their love of liberty shocked with the multiplicity of regulations. We, in the spirit of imitation, copied from the most oppressive part of the European laws on the subject of taxes, and imposed on a young and virtuous people the severe provisions made necessary by corruption and the long practice of evasion. If taxes should become necessary, I do not hesitate to say the people will pay cheerfully. It is for their government and their cause, and it would be their interest and duty to pay. But it may be, and I believe was said, that the people will not pay taxes, because the rights violated are not worth defending, or that the defence will cost more than the gain.

Sir, I here enter my solemn protest against this low and " calculating avarice" entering this hall of legislation. It is only fit for shops and counting-houses, and ought not to disgrace the seat of power by its squalid aspect. Whenever it touches sovereign power, the nation is ruined. It is too short-sighted to defend itself. It is a compromising spirit, always ready to yield a part to save the residue. It is too timid to have in itself the laws of self-preservation. It is never safe but under the shield of honour. There is, sir, one principle necessary to make us a great people — to produce, not the form, but real spirit of union, and that is to protect every citizen in the; lawful pursuit of his business. He will then feel that he is backed by the government — that its arm is his arm. He then will rejoice in its increased strength and prosperity. Protection and patriotism are reciprocal. This is the way which has led nations to greatness. Sir, I am not versed in this calculating policy, and will not, therefore, pretend to estimate in dollars and cents the value of national independence. I cannot measure in shillings and pence the misery, the stripes, and the slaveiy of our impressed seamen ; nor even the value of our shipping, commercial and agricultural losses, under the orders in council and the British system of blockade. In thus expressing myself, I do not intend to condemn any prudent estimate of the means of a country before it enters on a war. That is wisdom, the other folly. The gentleman from Virginia has not failed to touch on the calamity of war, that fruitful source of declamation, by which humanity is made the advocate of submission. If he desires to repress the gallant ardour of our countrymen by such topics, let me inform him that true courage regards onl}- the cause ; that it is just and necessary, and that it contemns the sufferings and dangers of war. If he really wishes well to the cause of humanity, let his eloquence be addressed to the British ministry, and not the American Congress. Tell them that, if they persist in such daring insult and outrages to a neutral nation, however inclined to peace, it will be bound by honour and safety to resist ; that their patience and endurance, however great, will be exhausted ; that the calamity of war Avill ensue, and that they, and not we, in the opinion of the world, will be answerable for all its devastation and misery. Let a regard to the interest of humanity stay the hand of injustice, and my life on it, the gentleman will not find it ditficult to dissuade his coimtrymen from rushing into the bloody scenes of war.

We are next told of the danger of war. We are ready to acknowledge its hazard and misfortune, but I cannot think that we have any extraordinary danger to apprehend, at least none to warrant an acquiescence in the injuries we have received. On the contrary, I believe no war would be less dangerous to internal peace or the safety of the country. But we are told of the black population of the Southern States. As far as the gentleman from Virginia speaks of his own personal knowledge, I shall not question the correctness of his statement. I only regret that such is the state of apprehension in his part of the country. Of the southern section, I too have some personal knowledge, and can say that in South Carolina no such fears, in any part, are felt. But, sir, admit the gentleman's statement : will a war with Great Britain increase the danger ? Will the country be less able to suppress insurrections 1 Had we anything to fear from that quarter — which. I do not believe — in my opinion, the period of the greatest safety is diu-ing a war, unless, indeed, the enemy should make a lodgment in the country. It is in war .that the country would be most on its guard, our militia the best prepared, and the standing army the greatest. Even in our Revolution, no attempts were made at insurrection by that portion of our population ; and, however the gentleman may alarm himself with the disorganizing effects of French principles, I cannot think our ignorant blacks have felt much of their baneful influence. I dare say more than one half of them never heard of the French Revolution.

But as great as he regards the danger from our slaves, the gentleman's fears end not there — the standing army is not less terrible to him. Sir, I think a regular force, raised for a period of actual hostilities, cannot properly be called a standing army. There is a just distinction between such a force and one raised as a permanent peace establishment. Whatever would be the composition of the latter, I hope the former will consist of some of the best materials of the country. The ardent patriotism of our young men, and the liberal bounty in land proposed to be given, will impel them to join their country's standard, and to fight her battles. They will not forget the citizen in the soldier, and, in obeying their officers, learn to contemn their government and Constitution. In our officers and soldiers we will find patriotism no less pure and ardent than in the private citizen ; but if they should be as depraved as has been represented, what have we to fear from 25,000 or 30,000 regulars ? Where will be the boasted militia of the gentleman ? Can 1,000,000 of militia be overpowered by 30,000 regulars ? • If so, how can we rely on them against a foe invading our country? Sir, I have no such contemptuous idea of our militia : their untaught bravery is sufficient to crush all foreign and internal attempts on their country's liberties.

But we have not yet come to the end of the chapter of dangers. The gentleman's imagination, so fruitful on this subject, conceives that our Constitution is not calculated for war, and that it cannot stand its rude shock. Can that be so ? If so, we must then depend upon the commiseration or contempt of other nations for our existence. The Constitution, then, it seems, has failed in an essential object: "to provide for the common defence." No, says the gentleman, it is competent to a defensive, but not an offensive war. It is not necessary for me to expose the fallacy of this argument. Why make the distinction in this case 1 Will he pretend to say that this is an offensive war — a war of conquest ? Yes, the gentleman has ventured to make this assertion, and for reasons no less extraordinary than the assertion itself. He says, our rights are violated on the ocean, and that these violations affect our shipping and commercial rights, to which the Canadas have no relation. The doctrine of retaliation has been much abused of late, by an unreasonable extension of its meaning. We have now to witness a new abuse : the gentleman from Virginia has limited it down to a point. By his rule, if you receive a blow on the breast, you dare not return it on the head ; you are obliged to measure and return it on the precise point on which it was received. If you do not proceed with this mathematical accuracy, it ceases to be self-defence — it becomes an unprovoked attack.

In speaking of Canada, the gentleman from Virginia introduced the name of Montgomery with much feeling and interest. Sir, there is danger in that name to the gentleman's argument. It is sacred to heroism ! it is indignant of submission ! It calls our memory back to the time of our Revolution — to the Congress of 1774 and 1775. Suppose a member of that day had rose and urged all the arguments which we have heard on this occasion — had told that Congress your contest is about the right of laying a tax — that the attempt on Canada had nothing to do with it — that the war would be expensive — that danger and devastation would overspread our country — and that the power of Great Britain was irresistible. With what sentiment, think you, would such doctrines have been then received ? Happy for us, they had no force at that period of our country's glory. Had such been acted on, this hall would never have witnessed a great people convened to deliberate for the general good ; a mighty empire, with prouder prospects than any nation the sun ever shone on, would not have risen in the West. No ! we would have been base, subjected colonies, governed by that imperious rod which Britain holds over her distant provinces.

The gentleman attributes the preparation for war to everything but its true cause. He endeavoured to find it in the probable rise in the price of hemp. He represents the people of the Western States as willing to plunge our country into war for such interested and base motives. I will not reason this point. I see the cause of their ardour, not in such unworthy motives, but in their known patriotism and disinterestedness.

No less mercenary is the reason which he attributes to the Southern States- He says that the Non-importation Act has reduced cotton to nothing, which has produced a feverish impatience. Sir, I acknowledge the cotton of our plantations is worth but little, but not for the cause assigned by the gentleman. The people of that section do not reason as he does ; they do not attribute it to the efforts of their government to maintain the peace and independence of their country : they see in the low price of their produce the hand of foreign injustice ; they know well, without the market of the Continent, the deep and steady current of our supply will glut that of Great Britain. They are not prepared for the colonial* state, to which again that power is endeavouring to reduce us. The manly spirit of that section will not submit to be regulated by any foreign power.

The love of France and the hatred of England have also been assigned as the cause of the present measure. France has not done us justice, says the gentleman from Virginia, and how can we, without partiality, resist the aggressions of England ? I know, sir, we have still cause of complaint against France, but it is of a different character from that against England. She professes now to respect our rights ; and there cannot be a reasonable doubt but that the most objectionable parts of her decrees, as far as they respect us, are repealed. We have already formally acknowledged this to be a fact. But I protest against the principle from which his conclusion is drawn. It is a novel doctrine, and nowhere avowed out of this houso, that you cannot select your antagonist without being guilty of partiality. Sir, when two invade your rights, you may resist both, or either, at your pleasure. The selection is regulated by prudence, and not by right. The stale imputation of partiality for France is better calculated for the columns of a newspaper than for the walls of this house.

The gentleman from Virginia is at a loss to account for what he calls our hatred to England. He asks, how can we hate the country of Locke, of Newton, Hampden, and Chatham ; a country having the same language and customs with ourselves, and descended from a. common ancestry 1 Sir, the laws of human aft'ections are steady and uniform. If we have so much to attach us to that country, powerful indeed must be the cause which has overpowered it. Yes, there is a cause strong enough ; not that occult, courtly affection, which he has supposed to be entertained for France, but continued and unprovoked insult and injury : a cause so manifest that he had to exert much ingenuity to overlook it. But the gentleman, in his eager admiration of England, has not been sufficiently guarded in his argument. Has he reflected on the cause of that admiration 1 Has he examined the reasons for our high regard for her Chatham 1 It is his ardent patriotism — his heroic courage, which could not brook the least insult or injury offered to his country, but thought that her interest and her honour ought to be vindicated, be the hazard and expense what they might. I hope, when we are called on to admire, we shall also be asked to imitate. I hope the gentleman does not wish a monopoly of those great virtues for England.

The balance of power has also been introduced as an argument for submission. England is said to be a barrier against the military despotism of France. There is, sir, one great error in our legislation ; we are ready, it would seem from this argument, to watch over the interests of foreign nations, while we grossly neglect our own immediate concerns. This argument, drawn from the balance of power, is well calculated for the British Parliament, but is not at all suited to the American Congress. Tell the former that they have to contend with a mighty power, and if they persist in insult and injury to the American people, they will compel them to throw their weight into the scale of their enemy. Paint the danger to them, and if they will desist from injuring us, I answer for it, we will not disturb the balance of power. But it is absurd for us to talk about it, while they, by their conduct, smile with contempt at what they regard as our simple, good-natured vanity. If, however, in the contest, it should be found that they underrate us, which I hope and believe, and that we can affect the balance of power, it will not be difficult for us to obtain such terms as our rights demand.

I, sir, will now conclude, by adverting to an argument of the gentleman used in debate on a preceding day. He asked, why not declare war immediately 1 The answer is obvious — because we are not yet prepared. But, says the gentleman, such language as is held here will provoke Great Britain to commence hostilities. I have no such fears. She knows well that such a course Avould unite all parties here — a thing which, above all others, she most dreads. Besides, such has been our past conduct, that she will still calculate on our patience and submission till war is actually commenced.

II. Onslow In Reply To Patrick Henry

No. 1.

If rumour may be credited, I may be proud in having you as an antagonist [Mr. A., the President of the United States] ; and if I were actuated by a sentiment of vanity, much of my reply would be devoted to tracing the strong, but, perhaps, accidental analogy between the style of your numbers and some of our public documents. But truth, and not the gratification of vanity, is my object ; and though the pride of victory would be swelled in proportion to the high

Standing of an opponent, I shall, without stopping to inquire into the question, of authorship, proceed directly to the point at issue.

If you have failed in your argument, you have, at least, succeeded in giving the question a new and interesting aspect. You have abandoned the rules and usages of the Senate, as the source of the Vice-president's authority as the presiding officer of the Senate. You contend that the disputed right is derived directly from the Constitution, and that the Vice-president's authority is wholly independent of the will of the Senate, which can neither give nor take it away. It is not my wish to misstate your arguments in the slightest degree, and, to avoid the possibility of misrepresentation, you shall speak for yourself. Spurning the authority of the Senate, you scornfully observe, " With the easy assurance of a man stating a conceded postulate, he (Onslow) says, ' After all, the power of the Vice-president must depend upon the rules and usages of the Senate :' a postulate not only false in its principle, but which, if true, would not sustain the cause to whose aid it is invoked. Unless the Constitution of the United States was subjected to some military construction, the power of the Vice-president, in presiding over the Senate, rests on deeper, holier foundations than any rules or usages which that body may adopt. What says the Constitution ? ' The Vice-president of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote unless they be equally divided.' ' The Senate shall choose their own officers, and also a president pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice-president, or when he shall exercise the office of President of the United States.' — (Const.

U. S., Art. 1, Sec. 3.) It is here made the duty of the Vice-president to preside over the Senate, under the sole restriction of having no vote except in a given case ; the right of the Senate to choose their president is confined to two contingencies ; his powers, after being so chosen, are identical with those of the president set over them by the Constitution, and any abridgment of those powers by the Senate would be a palpable infraction of that Constitution. Now, sir, what is the import of the term ' to preside,' in relation to a deliberative assembly ? Can any sophistry devise a plausible definition of it, which would exclude the power of preserving order ? In appointing an officer to preside over the Senate, the people surely intended not to erect an empty pageant, but to accomplish some useful object : and when, in another part of the Constitution, they authorize each house ' to determine the rules of its proceedings,' they do not authorize it to adopt rules depriving any office created by the Constitution of powers belonging, ex vi termini, to that office. If the plainest or most profound man in the community were asked what powers he supposed to be inherent in the presiding officer of either house of Congress, he would instantly enumerate, first, the power of preserving order in its deliberations ; next, that of collecting the sense of its members on any question submitted to their decision ; and, thirdly, that of au-' thenticating, by his signature, their legislative acts. I have before said, and I regret that I am obliged to repeat a truism, that ' the right to call to order is a necessary consequence of the power of preserving order ;' and that, ' unless a deliberative body, acting within the sphere of its competence, expressly restrict this power and this right, no restriction on them can then be supposed.' In divesting the president set over them by the people, of any power wliich he had received, either expressly or impliedly, from the people, the Sen^ite, instead of ' acting within the sphere of their competence,' would act usarpingly and unconstitutionally— they would nullify the connexion which the people had established between themselves and their president ; they would reduce themselves to the monstrous spectacle of a body without a head, and their president to the equally monstrous spectacle of a head without a body ; and their violent act, while it would be disobeyed as illegal, would be contemned as ridiculous. But, in truth, the Senate have never thus forgotten their allegiance to the Constitution."