The true source of the absurdity of this bill, is a mistake in the nature of the evil. The President of the United States tells us that the Administration have not sufficient men for their armies. The reason is, he adds, the want of pecuniary motive. In this lies the error. It is not pecuniary motive that is wanting to fill your armies. It is moral motive in which you are deficient. Sir, whatever difference of opinion may exist among the happy and wise yeomanry of New England, in relation to the principle and necessity of this war, there is very little, or at least much less diversity of sentiment, concerning the invasion of Canada, as a means of prosecuting it. They do not want Canada as an object of ambition; they do not want it as an object of plunder. They see no imaginable connection between the conquest of that province and the attainment of those commercial rights which were the pretended objects of the war. On the contrary, they see, and very plainly too, that if our Cabinet be gratified in the object of its ambition, and Canada become a conquered province, that an apology is immediately given for extending and maintaining in that country a large military force; under pretence of preserving the conquered territories—really, with a view to overawe adjoining States. With this view of that project the yeomanry of New England want that moral motive which will alone, in that country, fill your armies with men worthy enlisting. They have no desire to be the tools of the ambition of any man, or any set of men. Schemes and conquest have no charms for them.
Abandon your projects of invasion; throw your shield over the seaboard and the frontier; awe into silence the Indians in your territory; fortify your cities; take the shackles from your commerce; give us ships and seamen; and show the people of that country a wise object of warfare; and there will be no want of men, money, or spirit.
I proceed to my second objection, which was to the inequality of the operation of the provisions of this bill. It is never to be forgotten, in the conduct of the Government of these United States, that it is a political association of independent sovereignties, greatly differing in respect of wealth, resource, enterprise, extent of territory, and preparation of arms. It ought, also, never to be forgotten, that the proportion of physical force which nature has given does not lie within precisely the same line of division with the proportion of political influence which the constitution has provided. Now, sir, wise men, conducting a political association thus constructed, ought always to have mainly in view, not to disgust any of the great sections of the country, either in regard to their interests, their habits, or their prejudices. Particularly ought they to be cautious not to burden any of the great sections in a way peculiarly odious to them, and in which the residue of the States cannot be partakers, or at least only in a very small degree. I think this principle of political action is incontrovertible. Now, sir, of all the distinctions which exist in these United States, that which results from the character of the labor in different parts of the country, is the most obvious and critical. In the Southern States, all the laborious industry of the country is conducted by slaves; in the Northern States it is conducted by the yeomanry, their apprentices, or children. The truth is, that the only real property, in the labor of others, which exists in the Northern States, is that which is possessed in that of minors—the very class of which, at its most valuable period, this law proposes to divest them. The planter of the South can look round upon his fifty, his hundred, and his thousand of human beings, and say, These are my property. The farmer of the North has only one or two ewe lambs—his children—of which he can say, and say with pride, like the Roman matron, "These are my ornaments." Yet these, this bill proposes to take from him, or (what is the same thing) proposes to corrupt them—to bribe them out of his service; and that, too, at the very age when the desire of freedom is the most active, and the splendor of false glory the most enticing. Yet, your slaves are safe; there is no project for their manumission in the bill. The husbandman of the North, the mechanic, the manufacturer, shall have the property he holds in the minors subject to him put to hazard. Your property in the labor of others is safe. Where is the justice—where the equality—of such a provision?
It is very well known in our country—indeed it is obvious, from the very nature of the thing—that the exact period of life at which the temptation of this law begins to operate upon the minor, is the moment when his services begin to be the most useful to the parent or master. Until the age of 18, the boy has hardly paid to the parent or master the cost of his clothing and education. Between the age of 18 and 20, is just the period of profit to the father and master. It is also the period at which, from the approximation towards manhood, service begins to grow irksome, and the desire of liberty powerful. The passions are then, also, in their most ungoverned sway; and the judgment, not yet ripe, can easily be infatuated and corrupted by the vain dreams of military glory. At this period, your law appears with its instruments of seduction. It offers freedom to the minor's desire of liberty—plunder to his avarice—glory to his weakness. In short, it offers bounty and wages for disobedience to his natural or social obligations. This is a true view of this law. That it will have that full operation which its advocates hope and expect—that it will fill your armies with runaways from their masters and fathers—I do not believe; but, that it will have a very great operation, I know. The temptation to some of our youth will be irresistible. With my consent, they shall never be exposed to it.
Mr. Speaker, I hope what I am now about to say will not be construed into a threat. It is not uttered in that spirit; but only to evince the strength of my convictions concerning the effect of the provisions of this law on the hopes of New England, particularly of Massachusetts. But pass it, and if the Legislatures of the injured States do not come down upon your recruiting officers with the old laws against kidnapping and man-stealing, they are false to themselves, their posterity, and their country.
Mr. Fisk expressed the astonishment he felt at the observation which had fallen from the gentleman last up. He certainly agreed with the gentleman in one thing: that those who are in pursuit of a favorite object frequently overleap the bounds of reason and decorum in support of it. Now, it had been a favorite object with that gentleman to shield the British Government from blame; and it was an object which he certainly pursued with the greatest ardor and anxiety. In the address of that gentleman's political friends, in Congress, to their constituents, subsequent to the declaration of war, it had been deceptively said, that a disposition existed in the British Government to make an arrangement on the subject of impressment. Now, sir, that the ground is taken from under them, we hear that the object of the war is an unrighteous one, and we are guilty of waging it. Is it indeed guilty to defend our country? said Mr. F. The gentleman would overawe the Indians. Sir, the most innocent party in the war against us is the savage himself. How comes he in the ranks against us, with his tomahawk and scalping knife? Why is he impelled to shed our blood? Why has the gentleman shielded British instigation of their outrages?
Again, sir, has the gentleman no feeling for the sufferings, no ear for the groans of our suffering seamen? Has he no sympathy for those relations of life, from which the seamen is torn away, and for that moral sentiment which is violated in that outrage—and are we guilty because we seek to shield our citizens from it? Are we guilty because we resist the British scalping knife? Recall the year '98 to your recollection, sir, and the pompous display of energy at that day, and the armies raised—to fight whom?—a few miserable Frenchmen whom they could catch at sea. War was then a mere amusement. Why, that we are now at war with the nation who has been seizing our property, capturing our citizens, and carrying them into slavery—why are our means for carrying on war to be limited?
As to the provision of this bill so much objected to, was it esteemed such a violation of all right and principle in the commencement of the Revolution to take children of sixteen years of age from their parents? That was a period when the youth of the country were invited to the field. I was one who accepted the invitation, and I have never regretted it. But, says the gentleman, will you take the child from the parent? Sir, which excites the most tears—a child leaving his parent to defend his country, or a parent torn from his family and his country to fight for a foreign power? The truth is, that most of those who object to this bill would destroy all the means of carrying on the war, if they could. It was not thought immoral in the war of the Revolution to take youths of this age, nor were they the least efficient part of our army.
Mr. D. R. Williams said, if it was possible for him to keep down those feelings of indignation which pressed upon his mind, in what he had now to offer, he would speak with due respect to the orders of the House, and not infringe its privileges. He wished, indeed, he had not occasion to speak; but, sir, said he, it is my misfortune to be the Chairman of the Military Committee, more, Mr. Speaker, by your partiality than by any merit of mine. I am compelled to rise. I have been stigmatized by the gentleman (Mr. Quincy) as the introducer into this House of an atrocious principle. If such language comports with our rules of order, I must submit, seeing it is uttered where he is protected; but, sir, I must pronounce it a libel on myself, and throw it back on him who uttered it, as a foul, atrocious libel on the committee. Sir, I came here not disposed to use such language; nothing but extreme injury should extort it from me. I wish that the gentleman had kept the resolve he informed us he had formed; as he could not do so, I would that he had been good enough to spare me from the acrimony of his remarks. Atrocity! The advocate of an atrocious principle! Let the gentleman recur to those who originated this principle; let him go back to the day of the Revolution, and damn the memory of the patriots of those times, the fruit of whose labors he so ill deserves to enjoy. The provisions of those days authorized the enlistment of all over the age of sixteen years. Nor does the statement which the gentleman from New York made alter the case, for if there be an increase of population since the Revolution, there appears to be a correspondent deterioration of patriotism. The gentleman from Massachusetts admits that a necessity may exist to justify the course proposed by the bill. Well, sir, was there ever a crisis calling on a people for vigorous exertions more awful than that which impends over us now? Now, when a vile spirit of party has gone abroad and distracted the Union? Now, that the State which the gentleman represents is almost in arms against us? And, in such a state of things are we to be told that we are espousing an atrocious principle, because we are seeking for the means to defend our country? The will of the President is the law of the land, says the gentleman. How can he expect his arguments to be attended to, when the first word he utters after taking his seat is to insult and abuse every one opposed to him in opinion. I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker, I ask that of the House, for the language I am compelled to use; but so long as I am a man, so help me God, when I am told I am actuated by an atrocious principle, I will throw it back in the teeth of the assertor as an atrocious falsehood. Look back on the principle adopted by the friends of that gentleman—I wish I could say who were his friends—I do not call the honest federalist, who is willing to support his country's rights, his friend—even in England, the nation from which he talks of receiving his religion and morality, and I might add, his ideas of our rights—even in that country they do not prevent enlistment of minors—that is, they are not discharged on the ground of minority. I have said before, sir, that we had examples in our own Government, drawn not to be sure from the purest times, but which more than covered the whole case. A law was passed in 1798 which authorized the enlistment not only, of minors but every description of persons whom the President of the United States thought proper to have enlisted—which authorized him to send his recruiting sergeants into every family and take those who suited him best. This was the principle of his friends. Does the gentleman say that it was atrocious in 1798 to defend ourselves against the French? But it has become so now, seeing the defence we seek is against the English. The gentleman has said we act on an absurd principle; that we have mistaken the means of carrying on the war to effect: we want the moral means. By this I presume he would be understood that the people are opposed to the war, particularly to our land operations. There seems then to be no moral objection to the war on the ocean. And, sir, if it be not immoral to support the war on the ocean, on what possible principle can it be immoral, in the same cause, to support it on the land? The war on both elements is for the same object; not as the gentleman says, to rob and plunder in Canada, but, according to the motto of the gallant Captain Porter, for "free trade and sailors' rights."
Mr. Pitkin remarked that the power given to a recruiting officer to enlist minors was a new principle. It had not been acted upon before, or since the Revolution—this is a new mode of raising an army; were gentlemen prepared to adopt this new principle? Although by the resolves of the Congress of 1776, minors could be enlisted, yet apprentices were exempted—and if any were enlisted, yet, on proper application, they were discharged, unless it could be shown the enlistment was with the consent of their masters or guardians. By the law of '98, the President certainly could direct relative to the age and size of a recruit—yet to whom did he apply? Not to apprentices—not to wards—and then if an officer enlisted an apprentice without the consent of his master, he could be taken away from him by the writ of habeas corpus and the officer held liable for damages. The eleventh section of the law for raising an additional military force contained a similar provision, and it was also necessary the consent of the master or guardian should be in writing.