Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856, Vol. 2 (of 16)

by United States. Congress

But it was said, if the resolution was agreed to, it would confirm the opinion which had been held that Congress and the Executive were divided in opinion. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Sewall) told the House that the question was war or peace; that the conduct of France was a declaration of war, yet as the President had not called upon Congress to go to war, they ought not to declare that it is not expedient to resort to war. But if it be assumed as a principle, which that gentleman asserts, that the conduct of the French is a declaration of war, and the President has told us we are in war, the resolution could not be improper. Or if his other principle be assumed, that the information of the President does not amount to war, then an agreement to the resolution would show that Congress concurred with him in opinion, that it is not proper at present to resort to war. So that in both cases, the resolution is proper.

Mr. G. said he was precluded by the amendment from going into the merits of the resolution. His arguments went to show the propriety of agreeing to it in one way or other. Nor did he mean to take any notice of what had been said about a division of opinion in our councils having invited the insults and injuries which France had committed against this country. If he were to do this, he must have recourse to recrimination, which he did not wish. He wished rather to take a serious view of our present situation, and either meet it by war, or by measures which shall avoid war. On both sides are difficulties; but the difficulties and inconveniences of both ought to be weighed, and the least taken; and, having determined, measures ought to be pursued accordingly. He did not wish to adopt the resolution as proposed to be amended, and then go on and act directly contrary to it. He thought it best to meet the resolution at once, and say whether we are determined on war or peace. If we go to war, we must expect to meet all the expense and evils of such a state; and if we remain at peace, we must, in a certain degree, submit. He meant to say, that we must submit to have a number of our vessels taken. But whether we shall have more taken in adopting one course than the other, he left to gentlemen to determine. He thought the submission he had mentioned, very different from the submission which had been spoken of by the gentleman from South Carolina, and others.

Mr. G. concluded, by observing, that the conduct of France must tend to destroy that influence which gentlemen had so often complained of as existing in this country. Indeed, he was convinced that at the commencement of her revolution there was a great enthusiasm amongst our citizens in favor of her cause, which naturally arose from their having been engaged in a similar contest; but he believed these feelings had been greatly diminished by her late conduct towards this country. He thought, therefore, that whether we engaged in war, or remained in a state of peace, much need not be apprehended from the influence of France in our councils. The business had come to a mere matter of calculation, as to what course will be best to be taken for the interest and happiness of the country. If he could separate defensive from offensive war at sea, he should be in favor of it; but he could not make the distinction, and therefore he should be in favor of pursuing measures of peace.

Several persons rose, but, being about three o'clock, a motion was made for the committee to rise, which was negatived—46 to 44.

Mr. Dana did not conceive that the construction of language given by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, was to be taken as true, without examination. He trusted not. The gentleman stated the question to be peace or war; he could not conceive it to be such. It was unfortunate that, in this important crisis, the House should be engaged, like a set of rhetoricians, in disputing the meaning of words. Indeed, the decision on the present motion, he thought wholly unimportant.

The gentleman last up had said there was no distinction between offensive and defensive war, and that he was, therefore, opposed to either. Mr. D. thought the distinction clear; offensive war, is when an attack is made upon another; and defensive, when a nation has recourse to war, merely for self-defence. But there was another state of things which could not have the name of war, which was to have recourse to measures of defence; to be prepared in cases of attack. It was clear, by the law of nations, that to prepare for defence, was not to commit hostility. To say that to take measure of defence is hostility, was a new definition, and it was the mighty discovery of the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Did gentlemen mean that if we should make use of force against lawless violence, it is war? If not, what did all that had been said amount to? He thought the proposition perfectly nugatory.

But the gentleman said, that his friend from Massachusetts had said, that France had already declared war against us, and that, therefore, we must resort to war. For his part, he did not know what gentlemen meant by resorting to war. If they had adopted terms which had any legal meaning, he could have understood them, but the present might mean every thing, or nothing. If it meant any thing, it meant taking active measures against France in the first instance. He was not only ready to say he would not consent to do this with respect to France, but with respect to every other nation.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania, and two gentlemen from Virginia, had said that the Message of the President amounted to a declaration that we were now in war. This idea he thought was stated very incorrectly. They did not seem to have understood the meaning of the language of the President. The state of things which existed at the time orders were issued to prevent the arming of merchant vessels was essentially different from the present; then there was an evident disposition in the owners of vessels to cruise against a foreign belligerent nation, and the order was issued to prevent attack and plunder; but the desire to arm at present is for the purpose of defence merely, and not to cruise or plunder. There is a law forbidding vessels to arm for the purpose of cruising; but none forbidding merchants to arm in their own defence. This was the fair construction, he believed, of the meaning of the President.

Mr. Otis observed, that the opposers of this amendment could assign no better reason for declaring a desire to keep peace with the French Republic, to the exclusion of other nations, than their own construction of the President's last Message, which they considered as directed against that Republic only; but the House having resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, the resolution on the table had no greater relation to that Message than to any former Speech or Message, or to the affairs of the Union at large. If it was intended as an answer to the Message, it should be moved in that form; but unless it was in a particular manner connected with it, the public could not connect it more naturally with this Message, than the Speech delivered at the opening of the session. The House had been heretofore informed, that France was not the only country with which a rupture was to be apprehended. Spain might be considered, until lately, as having actually invaded our territory; and though the presumption at present was, that the causes of contention with that country were removed, yet they were not officially informed of that fact, and without such information it was not less proper to express their desire of maintaining peace with Spain than with other countries. Again, gentlemen had often intimated that a war with France would involve us in a war with the nations in alliance with her. It was therefore inexpedient to show a contempt or indifference for them, by leaving them out of our pacific manifesto.