the friends of peace in Congress who had been opposed to the declaration of war, the instructions of the President to the Envoys then in Europe to negotiate with the British, requiring only such conditions as were considered reasonable, and giving up some points before demanded, met with very general acceptance; and an opinion was expressed by several members in the opposition, that if peace could not be obtained on the terms then offered, the war should be readily supported by all parties. It was evident, however, from the diplomatic correspondence communicated to Congress, that the misfortunes and disasters, which had fallen on the French Emperor, had an influence in giving a more pacific tone to the new instructions of the President.

This disposition of the American administration, as the war had been commenced with extravagant claims on its part, gave strong hopes of peace. But as such an event was uncertain, as to how soon it might occur, it was proper to keep up the army; and various acts of Congress were passed to increase the regular troops, and to accept the service of State troops for local defence. The public debt, having increased to a vast amount in the course of three years, it was found necessary, even with a great probability of a speedy restoration of peace, to increase the taxes in various ways. A new direct tax of six millions was laid; the rate of postage on letters, by the public mail, was increased fifty per cent. Duties on sales at auction were increased one hundred per cent. Fifty per cent. added to the duties on licenses to retail wine and spirituous liquors. The duties on distilled spirits, on pleasure carriages, on household furniture, and on watches, were increased; and new duties laid on goods and wares manufactured in the United States.

These propositions were opposed with great earnestness and power by several members of Congress; especially the bill for six millions of direct taxes. The war was denounced as unjust, as well as unnecessary, and as being exceedingly oppressive to the people, whose course of profitable business had been so greatly interrupted. Complaints on this subject were every where heard among the people, and the majority became desirous of peace on any terms. During the session, a bill was presented for establishing a new Bank of the United States, as it was believed it would assist the government in its financial concerns, as well as the trading part of the community. The plan was approved by the Secretary of the Treasury, (Mr. Dallas,) and passed in the

House of Representatives and in the Senate; but the President disapproved of it, and it did not become a law. Some doubted the constitutional power of Congress to pass such an act; though a National Bank had been adopted with the approbation of Washington, when he was President and others supposed that it conferred special privileges on a few, and those solely of the mercantile class of citizens. The law, providing for calling out the militia to defend their respective States, was very acceptable, and was more agreeable to the State authorities, who could thus employ them near their homes, and merely for defence. In the Atlantic States, where the British vessels often landed their men, such a plan was useful and necessary; and it was also in harmony with the principles of the whole militia system. It was in substance such as was proposed and prayed for by the Hartford Convention, in December, 1814, composed of Delegates from most of the New England States. One of the measures they recommended was, that Congress should permit for the Governor of each State to employ the militia for its own defence, thus rendering unnecessary a large regular army, unless foreign conquest was intended; and a reimbursement be made by Congress, after the war was over, to each State, according to its expenses so incurred. And this was the principal measure adopted or recommended by that Convention; except remonstrating against both the necessity and propriety of the war.

The portion of the United States army in the south, under command of Major General Andrew Jackson, with a large body of the militia, made a successful stand against the British, who made an attack on New Orleans, in January, 1815. The British forces were estimated at 20,000. The American troops, under General Jackson, were far less numerous; and a full moiety of them were militia. He arranged the troops and laid his plans with great judgment, and met the enemy, soon after they landed, in a situation of great disadvantage to the British, and highly favorable to the Americans. The United States forces were completely victorious over the British; and the latter lost a large portion of their troops, in killed, wounded, and taken. The battle of New Orleans was one of the most brilliant affairs, where the land forces were concerned, which occurred during the war.

A bill was before Congress several weeks in November and December, of this session, for authorizing the President, on a refusal of the Governor of any State to call out the militia when requested, to order subordinate militia officers immediately to march their men as might be directed by

the officers of the regular army. It was approved by the majority in the House of Representatives; but was lost in the Senate, after long and earnest debate, by a single vote. The objection to the bill was, that it was in violation of the rights of the militia, and wholly unauthorized by the Constitution. One section of the bill also provided for drafting the militia, when they did not voluntarily enlist. The most powerful argument against it, was its direct interference with the privileges of the citizens enrolled in the militia, who were considered as under the authority of a State, and recognized to be so, even by the federal Constitution. The opinion of some eminent statesmen on this subject are given in a note below. The subject involved directly the great

*Gov. Strong of Massachusetts-"We have lately heard it observed, that the State legislatures have no right to express their opinions concerning the measures of the federal government. But this doctrine is opposed to the first principles of liberty; and cannot be approved by any one who has well considered the organization of our government, or the arguments used in favor of the federal constitution, when that system was adopted. The government of the United States is founded on the State governments, and must be supported by them. In the arrangements of the different powers, the State governments are, to many purposes, interposed between the government of the United States and the people. If the latter think they are oppressed, they will complain to their immediate Representatives; and the remonstrance of a State legislature will not often be slighted by a wise and just administration. The powers of the federal government are limited by the Constitution, which points out the extent of those powers, and the manner in which they are to be exercised.— But the Constitution will be of little value, unless it is strictly observed. If, at any time the national administration should disregard its authority, either by violating its express provisions, or by the assumption of power not delegated to it, its commands would be unjust, and it would be chargeable with a dangerous abuse of confidence. The State legislatures are the guardians, not only of individuals, but of the sovereignty of their respective States: and while they are bound to support the general government in the exercise of its constitutional powers, it is their duty to protect the rights of the States and of their constituents. The security thus afforded to the people would be lost, if the State legislatures were implicitly devoted to the views of the federal government, or were deprived of their rights to inquire into its measures."

The views of a distinguished Senator of the United States from Massachusetts, (Mr. Gore,) were given in a debate in February, 1815, relating to the power of the federal government over the militia." A question has sometimes been suggested, whether the government of a State has a right to judge, if the requisition for the militia be within the provisions of the Constitution. A little reflection on the nature of the government of the United States and of a State, and of the relation in which the supreme executive of the latter stands to the United States, and to the citizens of his particular State, will show that he is obliged to examine, whether the case for which the requisition is made, be within the provisions of the Constitution; and if the purposes for which it is declared are clearly not within the powers delegated by that instrument, to withhold compliance. The federal government can exercise no powers, not granted by the Constitution; but so far as it can support such as it claims, on this charter, it is sovereign, and has no other control than its own discretion.The government of each State is equally sovereign, with respect to every power

question of the extent of power in the federal government over the separate States, and in cases where the Constitution did not clearly grant it. The authority therein given to Congress, was for certain specific objects and purposes.And it was insisted that the power could not be extended except by usurpation.

of an independent State, which it has not delegated to the general government, or which is not prohibited to the separate States by the Constitution, whether the militia-the peculiar force of a State, and that which is to protect and defend it is called forth by the federal government according to the provisions which the States made, in delegating power to this government; must be a question between two sovereign and independent governments; and on which there is no tribunal authorized to judge between them. And if the governors, who are the Commanders-in-Chief of the militia of their respective States, should surrender this force to the general government, in a case not authorized in the Constitution, they would betray the trust confided to them by the people. They must, therefore, examine the case when called upon, and decide according as their duty, prescribed by the Constitution of the United States and that of their own State, shall demand."

Another eminent Senator from Massachusetts, (Mr. Lloyd,) expressed a similar opinion on this subject. "The admission of the doctrine, to the full extent, that the federal executive is to be the only judge of the emergencies, in which the militia is to be brought into the service of the United States at the time, and in the manner, which it may think expedient; that the militia can, by a junction of a large number to a few regular troops, be, in fact, officered by the President; and that the executives of the several States, contrary to their own belief in the existence of such emergency, should be obliged to submit to such authority, or such a tribunal, erected in the breast of a single person, and to yield implicit obedience to such an opinion, must place them at the mercy or disposition of any future tenant of power; strip the individual States of their physical as well as fiscal power; and scarcely leave them the remnant of that sovereignty and self-dependence, which some of them at least supposed they had retained."

When the bill, called the militia conscription bill, was before Congress, in December, 1814, a Representative from Massachusetts, (Mr. Ward,) said"I cannot suppress my astonishment, when I hear gentlemen quote the preamble of the Constitution, as an authority to exercise power not given in that instrument, and proposed to give the executive by this bill. It appears to me to make directly against them. Under a Constitution formed for the express purpose of securing the blessings of civil liberty, they claim the right of exercising a power inconsistent with the first principles of civil liberty, and repugnant to the genius and nature of our government. If Congress have such a power, we are not freemen. The preamble states the objects which the people had in view, in giving the powers which they granted, and not as a designation of powers which were to be given. But there is no express provision in the Constitution, that Congress shall have power to provide for the common defence and promote the general welfare." And to say, that Congress have all the powers which they may deem necessary and choose to exercise, to accomplish these objects, and that they are not restrained by the powers expressly given, is, in effect, to say that there is no limit to their powers. But if powers were given in the general terms before mentioned-which however is not admitted-and afterwards particular powers were expressed, the general powers must be controlled and restrained by the special.

Though the federal government cannot claim any power by implication; yet

It is evident that the framers of the federal compact intended carefully to guard the rights and liberties of the people; to maintain the natural and essential distinction between the militia and regular troops, and to give authority to the national rulers over the militia only for purposes of defence in cases of sudden invasion. And the people, and

this cannot be said of the State governments. It is fair to infer what they meant to reserve in one case, by what they refused to give in another. That the people and the States did not intend to give Congress power, to compel the citizens by force, or their children, to enter the regular army, destined for foreign conquest, under United States officers, is clearly to be inferred from their refusing to place the militia under United States officers, when forced into the service in the case of invasion.

When the Constitution was formed and adopted, a jealousy of the military power, and a caution as to what they should part with, were predominant feelings in the people of all the States. A consolidated military government was the object of fearful apprehension. The State governments had been tried; and a more general confidence was placed in them than in that of the United States. The blessings of civil liberty were thought more secure, without giving to the federal government an unlimited power of the sword. And had the people of Massachusetts been told, that Congress would have power to raise regular armies, by the new Constitution, against the opinion of their State legislature, for foreign conquest, or any other purpose, and their sons or themselves thrust into the ranks under command of United States officers, and be subject to martial law, and the discipline and severity of a camp, they would have given it no consideration, but rejected it at once. They would have said, as the people of Virginia did, on a less warrantable occasion, "we will secede from the Union, and be under the protection and government of a hundred thousand free and independent citizens."

The following paragraph is from a report, made by another distinguished statesman of Massachusetts, (Mr. Otis,) on this difficult subject.—“The authority of the national government over the militia, is derived from the clauses in the Constitution, which give power to Congress to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection, and repel invasions." Also "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such parts of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." Again, "the President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States." In these specified cases only has the nation power over the militia. And it follows conclusively, that, for all general and ordinary purposes, this power belongs to the States respectively; and to them alone. It is perceived not only with astonishment, but regret, that, under color of an authority conferred with such plain and precise limitations, a power is arrogated by the federal executive, and in some cases sanctioned by Congress, of a control over the militia, which if conceded, will render nugatory the rightful authority of the individual States over that class of men; and, by placing at the disposal of the national government, the lives and services of the great body of the people, enable it at pleasure to destroy their liberties and erect a military despotism on its ruins. It will not be denied, that by the terms used in the federal compact, the power of the general government to call out the militia, is expressly limited to three cases. One of these must exist as a condition precedent to the exercise