Tuesday, May 23.
Two other members, to wit: from North Carolina, Joseph McDowell, and from Virginia, Josiah Parker, appeared, produced their credentials, were qualified, and took their seats.
Answer to the Presidents Speech.
The House then went into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Dent in the chair, on the amendment of Mr. Nicholas to the report of the select committee, in answer to the President's Speech.
Mr. Freeman first rose. He observed, that in his observations on the subject before the committee, amid the conflicting opinions of gentlemen whom he respected, he did not mean to express his own either with confidence or with zeal. Though one of the committee that had reported the Address, he could not approve it in toto. He had two principal objections to it. First, to that part which went to an unequivocal approbation of all the measures of the Executive respecting our foreign relations; and, secondly, to that part which contained expressions of resentment and indignation towards France. In framing an answer to the President, he conceived the committee should have refrained from expressing an unqualified approbation of all the measures of the Executive. To omit it would not imply censure. By introducing it, it forced all those who entertain even doubts of the propriety of any one Executive measure to vote against the Address.
The principal causes of the irritation on the part of France, insisted upon in the Answer, were the rejection of our Minister, and the sentiments contained in the Speech of the President of the Directory to our late Minister. If gentlemen would look into the documents laid before the House by the President, he was confident they would find the true reason for the refusal to receive our Minister. He came only as an ordinary Minister, without any power to propose such modifications as might lead to an accommodation, and when the Directory discovered this from his credentials they refused him. In answer to this, it had been urged that M. Delacroix, Minister of Foreign Affairs, from the first, well knew that Mr. Pinckney was only the successor to Mr. Monroe, and that his coming in that quality was not the reason why the French refused to receive him. Mr. F. referred to the documents which had been laid before the House on this subject, from which it appeared that the secretary of M. Delacroix had suggested a reason for the apparent change of opinion on the subject of receiving Mr. Pinckney. Suppose, the secretary observed, that M. Delacroix had made a mistake at first in the intentions of the Directory, was that mistake to be binding on the Directory?
He did not wish to be understood to consider the conduct of the French as perfectly justifiable; but he could not conceive that it was such as to justify, on our part, irritating or violent measures. As to the Speech of the President of the Directory, he could not say much on it, he did not perfectly understand it. As far as he did, he considered it a childish gasconade, not to be imitated, and below resentment. [He read part of it]. It was certainly arrogant in him to say that we owed our liberty to their exertions. But if the French could derive any satisfaction from such vain boasting he had no objection to their enjoying it. There was another part of the Speech that had been considered as much more obnoxious. It was said to breathe a design to separate the people here from their Government. The part alluded to was no more than an expression of affection for the people; he could see nothing in this irritating or insulting; it was a mode of expression which they used as to themselves, and by which they wished to convey their affection for the whole nation. The term people, certainly included the Government, and could not with propriety, therefore, be said to separate the people from it.
An idea had been thrown out by the gentleman from South Carolina, that the people generally approved of the British Treaty; he inferred it from the fate of the late elections. For his part he could see no great alteration to have been produced by the late elections; and if there had been it would not have been an evidence to his mind that the people approved of the British Treaty. He believed, for his part, that the opinions of a great majority of the people had been uniformly averse to it; and those who advocated it were by this time nearly sick of it. It was true a spirit was aroused by the cry of war at the time the subject of appropriation was pending, that produced petitions, not approving however of the stipulations of the treaty, but asking that it might be carried into effect since it had reached so late a stage.
Another engine, he observed, had been wielded with singular dexterity. Much had been effected by the use, or rather abuse, of the terms federalist and anti-federalist, federalism and anti-federalism. When the Federal Constitution was submitted to the people, to approve it, and endeavor to procure its ratification, it was federalism. Afterwards, when the Government was organized and in operation, to approve every measure of the Executive and support every proposition from the Secretary of the Treasury, was federalism; and those who entertained even doubts of their propriety, though they had been instrumental in procuring the adoption of the constitution, were called anti-federalists. In 1794 to be opposed to Madison's propositions, the resolution for the sequestration of the British debts, and the resolution prohibiting all intercourse with Great Britain, was federalism. In 1796 it was federalism to advocate the British Treaty; and now he presumed that it would be federalism to support the report of the committee and hightoned measures with respect to France. In 1793 he acknowledged that federalism assumed a very different attitude from what it had on the present occasion; it was then the attitude of meekness, of humanity, and supplication. The men who exclusively styled themselves federalists, could only deplore with unavailing sighs the impotence of their country, and throw it upon the benevolence and magnanimity of the British Monarch. Their perturbed imaginations could even then see our cities sacked and burnt, and our citizens slaughtered. On the frontier they heard the war-hoop, and the groans of helpless women and children, the tortured victims of savage vengeance. Now we are at once risen from youth to manhood, and are ready to meet the haughty Republic of France animated with enthusiasm and flushed with victory. Mr. F. observed, that he rejoiced however that gentlemen adopted a bolder language on this than had been used on the former occasion. He felt his full shame in the national degradation of that moment. He was in favor of firm language; but he would distinguish between the language of manly firmness and that of childish petulance or ridiculous bombast.
Mr. Griswold said, if he understood the state of the business, the question was, whether the committee would agree to the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Virginia? If it contained sentiments accordant to the feelings of the committee, it would of course be adopted; if not, it would doubtless be rejected.
He supposed it would form an objection to this amendment, if it were found to be inconsistent with the other parts of the report. He believed this to be the case; but he would not make objections to it on this ground. He would examine the paragraph itself, and see whether it contained sentiments in unison with those of the committee. He believed this would not be found to be the case, and that when the committee had taken a view of it, it would be rejected.
If he understood the proposition, it contained three distinct principles, viz:
1. To make a new apology for the conduct of the French Government towards this country.
2. That the House of Representatives shall interfere with and dictate to the Executive in respect to what concessions ought to be made to the French Republic.
3. It depends upon the spirit of conciliation on the part of France for an adjustment of the differences existing between the two Governments.
The apology, he said, was a new one, and one which the French had not thought of making for themselves; for they tell us, as it appears from Mr. Pinckney's letter to the Secretary of State, "they will not acknowledge or receive another Minister Plenipotentiary from the United States, until after the redress of the grievances demanded of the American Government, and which the French Republic has a right to expect from it." We say (or rather the gentleman from Virginia says in his amendment) they rejected our Minister because he had not power enough; therefore, for the apology now made for the French Government they were indebted to the ingenuity of the mover.
Now, said Mr. G., I do not wish that the House of Representatives should undertake to make apologies for the conduct of the French Government towards this. It was true they needed apology; but he did not think it was proper for us to make it for them. Further, as this apology was not made by themselves, but wholly different from their own assertions, it was not likely that they would fall into it. They say, "Permit us to sell our privateers in your ports; annul treaties and repeal laws, and then we will tell you on what terms we will receive Mr. Pinckney, and peace from you." After this declaration, he did not think it would be proper to attempt any new apology for them. He therefore supposed, that so far as this proposition offered a new apology for the French Republic, it could not meet with the approbation of the committee.
The next proposition contained in the amendment was, that the House of Representatives should interfere with the Executive power of this country, and dictate to it what sort of steps should be taken towards reconciling the French Government. He asked whether this was consonant to the principles of the constitution? Whether the constitution had not delegated the power of making treaties to other branches of the Government? He believed it had, and that therefore we had no right to dictate to the Executive what should or what should not be done with respect to present disputes with the French Government. On this ground, therefore, he considered it as improper.
In the next place, the amendment contained another proposition, viz: that we rely upon a spirit of conciliation on the part of France for an accommodation of differences. And, said Mr. G., do we really rely upon this? Have we such evidence as should incline us to rely upon it? Have the French Government expressed any inclination to settle the differences subsisting between them and us? The communications which were received from the Supreme Executive, do not bear this complexion. The communication from the French Minister to this Executive does not wear it. Our proclamations are called insidious; our Minister is insulted and rejected; and attempts are made to divide the people of this country from their Government. Is this conciliation? Does it not rather appear as if they intended to alienate the affections of the people from their Government, in order to effect their own views? He was convinced it did, and that they could not rely upon a spirit of conciliation in them. For his own part, he did not rely upon it; he relied upon this country being able to convince the world that we are not a divided people; that we will not willingly abandon our Government. When the French shall be convinced of this, they will not treat us with indignity. Therefore, he trusted, as the proposed amendment did not contain such sentiments as were likely to accord with the feelings of the committee, that it would be rejected.
Mr. Giles said the subject under discussion was a very important one. It appeared to him, from various documents, that all the steps taken by the Executive had a view to an eventual appeal to arms, which it was his wish (as it was the wish of many in that House) to avoid. It was proper, therefore, that the clashing opinions should be discussed. If the proposition brought forward for this purpose was not sufficiently simple and explicit, he wished it might be made more so. For he believed the question to be, whether the committee be prepared to pass a vote, approving of the whole course of the conduct of the Executive, or whether France should be put upon the same ground with the other belligerent powers. That she is at present upon the same footing, no gentleman had attempted to show. Gentlemen who wish to get rid of this ground, say this is a thing which should be left to the Executive. He thought it was, however, a proper subject for their discussion; for whatever power the Executive had with respect to making of treaties, that House had the means of checking that power. Suppose, said Mr. G., I were on this occasion called upon to tax my land, was it not necessary I should inquire into the subject, and endeavor to avoid a measure which would probably prove a serious drain upon the blood and treasure of the country? He was unwilling to have his land taxed for the purpose of supporting a war on this principle. It was evident that the French took one ground in this dispute, and the United States another, and whilst this continued to be the case, no negotiation would have any effect. Indeed, said he, it is war; and if the measure proposed was taken, we make war if we do not declare it.
Mr. Baldwin said, he had taken the liberty to express his concern several years ago, that this custom of answering the President's Speech, which was but a mere piece of public ceremony, should call up and demand expressions of opinion on all the important business of the session, while the members were yet standing with their hats in their hands, in the attitude of receiving the communications, and had not yet read or opened the papers which were the ground of their being called together. It applied very strongly in this instance, as this was a new Congress, and a greater proportion than common of new members; he thought it an unfavorable attitude in which to be hurried into the very midst of things, and to anticipate business of such vast importance to the country, before they had time to attend to the information which had been submitted to them. He trusted some fit occasion would before long be found to disencumber themselves of a ceremony, new in this country, which tended only to evil and to increasing embarrassments. He observed that it was under the influence of these impressions, he had made it a rule to himself, for many sessions, to vote for those amendments and those propositions in the Address which were most delphic and ambiguous, and while they were respectful to the President, left the House unpledged and open to take up the business of the session as it presented itself in its ordinary course. It was on this ground he should vote for the amendment now under consideration.
Mr. Rutledge said, when the report of the committee should be before them, he should have some remarks to make upon it; but at present he should offer only a few observations upon the proposed amendment.
He said he had strong objections to the amendment; but one so strong that he need not urge any other: it was, that in agreeing to it they should dictate to the Executive, which he believed would be infringing upon the Executive power. As it was his peculiar duty to give instructions to Ministers, it would be improper in them to say what should be the instructions given to a Minister; but if it were not so, he should not vote for those of the gentleman from Virginia.
In the instructions of a Minister, it was usual to comprise a variety of propositions. Certain things were first to be proposed; if these could not be obtained, he was instructed to come forward with something else, and if this could not be got, he went on to his ultimatum. But, if the proposition of the gentleman from Virginia were to obtain, his instructions would be publicly known. In vain would it be for him to offer this or that, they will say the House of Representatives has directed you what to do, and we will not agree to any thing else. This would be contrary to all diplomatic proceedings; for that reason he should be opposed to the House saying what should be his instructions. Indeed, if it were usual, he should be against it in this instance, as he believed it would encourage an extravagant demand. What, said he, have they said to our Minister—or rather to the person who was formerly our Minister, but who then had no power? They told him to go away; they had nothing to say to him: they would receive no more Ministers from the United States until their grievances were redressed. This country is charged with countenancing an inequality of treaties. The French have said, redress our grievances in a certain way. But, said Mr. R., if we do this, we shall put ourselves under the dominion of a foreign power, and shall have to ask a foreign country what we shall do. This was a situation into which we must not fall without a struggle.
Mr. Sitgreaves said, though he had wished to have taken a little more time before he had troubled the committee with his observations; yet, as there now appeared an interval, he should take the opportunity of occupying it for a few minutes.
He should not answer the observations of the gentleman from Georgia, with respect to the style of the Answer reported; but he believed that those gentlemen who would look at it without a perverted vision, would not discover the faults in it which that gentleman had discovered. He thought it rather remarkable for the simplicity of its style than for a redundancy of epithet. He discovered more of the latter in the amendment than in the original report. It was true that the superlative was used in different places, but he thought it was used where it ought to be. He would not, however, detain the committee with matter so immaterial, but would proceed to what appeared to him of some consequence.
A stranger who had come into the House during this debate, and heard what had fallen from the mover of the proposed amendment, and from members who had followed him, would have supposed, that instead of an act of ordinary course being under discussion, they had been debating the question of a declaration of war against France.
He would declare, for himself at least, on the subject of war, that he agreed in certain of the sentiments of gentlemen on the other side of the House. A state of war was certainly a curse to any nation; to America it would be peculiarly a curse. It ought to be avoided by all possible means. It was not only impolitic, but madness, to run into war. But he thought there were two sides of the subject. He thought that peace was the greatest of all possible blessings; but he also thought that peace might be purchased too dearly, and war avoided at too great an expense. He thought peace might cost a greater value than money—our independence. This was no new sentiment in this country. It was thought that peace might be bought too dearly in the Revolutionary war; they then thought it better to be at war than to submit to the alternative evils. France also shows that she prefers a state of war—a war carried on at an unexampled expense of blood and treasure—to a state of peace with despotism. He thought, therefore, that we should hold a language of a firm and manly tone. To preserve peace by all honorable means, but not by dishonorable means. As he observed last session, on a similar occasion, we should cultivate peace with zeal and sincerity; but whenever our intention of doing so was publicly expressed, it ought to be accompanied with an opposite assertion of a determination, if our endeavors to maintain peace fail, that then every resource of the nation shall be called into existence in support of all that is dear to us. Such a declaration, at this time, was extremely proper. At present, he said, all the observations which had been made relative to war, were very premature. They might be brought into consideration, when any measure should be discussed which might lead to a war with France. Then would be the time to count the cost and the benefit. At present, he conceived, our only object was, to inquire what were the feelings which the conduct of France had created in our minds, and whether we were prepared to express those feelings.
Shall we, said he, from a fear of irritating the French Republic, in a communication with our own Executive, suppress our feelings, or what is worse, suppress the truth? For his own part, he saw nothing in the present business but an expression of feelings naturally excited by the occasion; nothing but a declaration of facts. This being the case, the question was, whether, from fear of irritating the French Government, they should suppress these feelings.
It would be well to consider what would be the consequence of this condescension. He did not think they were warranted in believing that they should put France in a better humor with us by this means. He was sure that gentlemen who were in the last Congress would recollect that the Answer to the Address was reported in very mild terms, from a spirit of accommodation in the committee who formed it, and that it was afterwards pruned in the House with care, yet there had been no amelioration of the disposition of the French towards this country. Instead of inducing them to behave better to us, had it not been with a knowledge of this that they have offered us fresh insult and indignity? Indeed, Mr. Pinckney suggests an idea that this moderation of ours may have been one of the operating causes of sending our Minister from their country. Besides, gentlemen have not pointed out the particular expressions which they consider as irritating in the report. For his own part, he thought the amendment might be considered as more irritating than the draft of the committee. What was the language of the amendment? [He read it.] He gave it as his opinion, that there was more of war and bullying in it than in the original report. It was true the threat it contained was accompanied by an if. Now, all the difference between the draft and the amendment was, that in the former, instead of using the if, they had at once expressed indignation at the insults offered to this country by the French Republic, and given assurances to the Executive that they would repel indignity with indignation.
But, said he, let us, on this occasion, confine ourselves to the real question now before us. We have been informed, said he, by the President, in his Speech to both Houses, of the conduct of the French towards this Government, and have since received the documents upon which this report was founded. He had not yet heard any gentleman justify the conduct of the French. He had heard, indeed, some attempts to palliate or apologize for it, but none to vindicate it. His ideas of these things were, that the French had not only injured us, but added insult to injury; and while he retained this belief, he could not help feeling indignation and resentment. The question before the House was not, Will we resent it? Our actions, better than our words, show our desires for peace. It was a desire in which we were too much interested, to be doubted; yet it was proper that this desire should be accompanied with expressions of our feelings on the occasion. What objections could there be to this? If we were sunk so low, if our fears of the French Republic are so great, that we dare not express what we feel, our situation was become really deplorable. He hoped this was not, nor ever would be the case. He hoped we should cultivate peace with sincerity, but with firmness. For if the French Republic is so terrible to us, that we must crouch and sink before her; if we hold our rights at her nod, let gentlemen say so. And if we are to give up ourselves to her, let it be an act of the Government; do not let us conceal under the appearance of spirit, actual submission. Nations, it was true, might be brought into such a situation as to be obliged to surrender some of their rights to other nations; but when this is done, it should be done with some degree of character. Let it not be done as a confession of guilt. Let us, said he, however, surrender any thing, sooner than the fair fame of our country. He was not a military man, nor did he know how he should act upon such an occasion; but he knew what we ought to do. We ought, rather than submit to such indignity, to die in the last ditch. Why insinuate that the Government had been wrong? was it not enough to submit to injury; shall we not only receive the stripes, but kiss the rod that inflicts them?
Mr. Otis observed, that he was so little accustomed to the mode of conducting a debate in that honorable House, that he hardly knew in what manner to apply his remarks to the subject before the committee. A specific motion had been laid on the table by the gentleman from Virginia, which reduced the true question before them to a narrow compass; but the mover, in discussing his own proposition, had enlarged upon subjects dear to his mind, and familiar to his recollection. In this circuit he had been ably followed by the gentleman from South Carolina, and others; so that the whole subject of the Address to the President, and the reply of the committee, was brought into view, with many considerations that did not belong to it. It was his design to have remained silent until the subject had been exhausted by other gentlemen, and if any remark of an important nature had been omitted, which was not likely to have been the case, he would have suggested such ideas as might have presented themselves to his mind; but a motion having been made for the committee to rise, he would then offer a few observations, not so much for the sake of illustrating the question, which had been done most successfully, but in order to declare his sentiments upon this important occasion. He so far agreed with the gentleman from Georgia, that he believed, upon ordinary occasions, an Answer to the President's Address should be calculated to preserve an harmonious intercourse between the different departments of Government, rather than to pledge either branch of the Legislature, collaterally, upon subjects that would come regularly under their consideration. But the present was not an ordinary occasion, and the situation of the country required that the Answer should not be a spiritless expression of civility, but a new edition of the Declaration of Independence. He expressed his regret that upon this question gentlemen should have wandered into a review of measures and subjects, so frequently examined, so deliberately settled, and which had a tendency to rekindle party animosity. If they would never acquiesce in the deliberate acts of the Government, because their personal sentiments had been adverse to them in the season of their discussion, there could be no end to controversy. For his part he conceived that all party distinctions ought now to cease; and that the House was now called by a warning voice, to destroy the idea of a geographical division of sentiment and interest existing among the people. His constituents and himself were disposed to regard the inhabitants of the Southern States as brothers, whose features were cast in the same mould, and who had waded through the same troubled waters to the shore of liberty and independence. He hoped that gentlemen would, in their turn, think the other part of the Union entitled to some consideration.
The Address of the President disclosed, for the contemplation of the committee, a narrative of facts, and of the existing causes of controversy between the French Republic and ourselves; the overtures for reconciliation, which were to be repeated by attempts to negotiate, and the measures of defence that might be proper, in case negotiation should fail. The injuries sustained by us were of a high and atrocious nature, consisting in the capture of our vessels, depredations upon the property and persons of our citizens, the indignity offered to our Minister; but what was more aggravating than the rest, was, the professed determination not to receive our Minister until the complaints of the French should be redressed, without explanation and without exception—until we should violate treaties, repeal laws, and do what the constitution would not authorize, vacate solemn judgments of our courts of law. These injuries should not be concealed. He did not wish, however, to indulge in unnecessary expressions of indignation, but to state in plain and unequivocal terms the remonstrances of injured friendship. If any man doubted of the pernicious effects of the measures of the French nation, and of the actual state of our commerce, let him inquire of the ruined and unfortunate merchant, harassed with persecutions on account of the revenue, which he so long and patiently toiled to support. If any doubted of its effects upon agriculture, let him inquire of the farmer whose produce is falling and will be exposed to perish in his barns. Where, said he, are your sailors? Listen to the passing gale of the ocean, and you will hear their groans issuing from French prison-ships. Such were the injuries, and such the requisitions of the French nation; and he defied the ingenuity of any gentleman to draw a comparison between the Directory and the British Parliament, in favor of the former; and insisted that the demands of Charles Delacroix were upon a parallel with those of Lord North. He enlarged upon the analogy of the circumstances attending the pretensions of the British Government to bind us, when we were colonies, and of the French to subjugate us, now we are free and independent States. He thought it expedient to cultivate the same spirit of union, and to use the same firm and decided language. He regretted that questions should be agitated upon this occasion, which had been formerly the cause of party spirit and dissensions; and did not believe that the immortal men who framed the noted instrument which dissolved the charm of allegiance and shivered the fetters of tyranny, condescended to differ about verbal criticisms and nice expressions, through fear of giving offence; nor that it was incumbent upon the members of the committee to repress the assertion of their rights, or smother a just and dignified expression of their susceptibility of insult, because the French had been once our friends, or because the commencement of their revolution was a struggle for liberty. There was a time when he was animated with enthusiasm in favor of the French Revolution, and he cherished it, while civil liberty appeared to be the object; but he now considered that Revolution as completely achieved, and that the war was continued, not for liberty, but for conquest and aggrandizement, to which he did not believe it the interest of this country to contribute.