rope would consider it so, and have engaged in war for less cause of offence than this resolution contains. You pronounce at once, without knowing whether the proceedings at New Orleans were sanctioned by the court of Spain, that, that nation is in a state of hostility against your honor and interest, which declaration, coupled with the following resolution.... "That it does not consist with the dignity or safety of this Union to hold a right so important by a tenure so uncertain," is a direct insult to that nation. But if war is not to be found in those resolutions, is it not in the fifth resolution, "That "the President be authorized to take immediate possession "of such place or places in the said island, or the adjacent "territories, as he may deem fit or convenient." Is this not war? If it be not, he knew not what war was! And now let us enquire, if we should be justified in adopting those measures, on the grounds of public or private justice, or the laws of nations.

Sir, The going to war has always been considered, even among barbarous nations, a most serious thing; and it has not been undertaken without the most serious deliberation. It was a practice among the Romans, prior to undertaking a war, to consult the Faciales on the justice of it; and after it had been declared just, to refer it to the senate, to judge of the policy of it; and unless the justice and the policy were both accorded in, the war was not undertaken. If this was the case then, among barbarous nations, shall we who call ourselves a civilized nation, not well weigh the justice and the policy of going to war, before we undertake it. Two gentlemen who had preceded him, (Messrs. BRECKENRIDGE and CLINTON) have read some passages on those points, from the law of nations, and he begged to be indulged in reading one or two more; they are from Burlamaqui, 2d vol. p. 264, ch. 4, of those things which ought to precede war: "However just reason, says this author, we may have to make war, yet as it inevitably brings along with it an incredible number of calamities, and oftentimes acts of injustice, it is certain that we ought not to proceed too easily to a dangerous extremity, which may perhaps prove fatal to the conquerer himself. Supposing the reason of war is just in itself, yet the dispute ought to be about something of great consequence; since it is better even to relinquish part of our right, when the thing is not considerable, than to have recourse to arms to defend it.".... Again, "We ought to have at least a probable appearance of success, for it would be a criminal temerity to expose our

selves to certain destruction, and to run into a greater in order to avoid a lesser evil." "Lastly," says this writer, "there should be a real necessity for taking up arms; that is, we ought not to have recourse to force, but when we can employ no milder method of recovering our right, or of defending ourselves from the evils with which we are menaced. For, as a sovereign ought to take particular care of the state, and its subjects, he should not expose them to the evils with which war is attended, except in the last extremity, and when there is no other expedient left but that of arms,'

What is our course then to pursue? Is it to go immediately to war, without asking for redress? By the law of nations, and the doctrines of all writers on them, you are not justified until you have tried every possible method of obtain, ing redress in a peaceable manner: it is only in the last extremity, when you have no other expedient left, that a recourse to arms is lawful or just; and he hoped the United States would never forfeit her character for justice, by any hasty or rash steps, which she may too late have to repent of....when she can have recourse to another method which may procure a redress of the wrong complained of.

Let us now look to the policy of adopting those resolutions, which must inevitably involve the United States in war, and stir up the jealousy of European nations. They watch you already with a jaundiced eye, although the nation is in its infancy. Yes, sir, our nation is as it were, in comparison with other nations, an infant; but it is a Hercules in its cradle, and they know it! They will seek every means to check its rapid, giant-like growth; and they will seize on every occa sion to curb it, if they perceive any serious evidences of its ambition. Your taking possession of New Orleans would afford such evidence; it would rouse them....they would be alarmed for their own possessions near you, and would combine to put a stop to your career. Would it be honorable then, sir, to retrace your steps after you have taken possession? Would it comport with the national honor and dignity we have heard so much about? He need not answer the question.

To induce us to seize the present moment in taking pospession of the island, an honorable gentleman from Delaware, (Mr. WHITE) has told us, that if we delay the present moment, we shall not meet a weak, an inanimate enemy....the sluggish Spaniard....the slave of France....but the bayonets of the invincible band of French grenadiers! Sir, in such

a hostile proceeding, as we are called on to adopt, he believed that even the sluggish Spaniard would be roused from his slumber, and join in the cry against us.

An honorable gentleman, the mover of the resolutions, informed us the other day, That by negociation, you would not only take away every chance of payment of the spoliations on our commerce by Spain, from the merchants; but you would also take away all ability from the western people to pay those merchants what they owed them at home; whereby they would be double sufferers....Shall we reverse this picture, and see how the merchants would fare if the resolutions were to be adopted?....Sir, they would be received as a measure of decided war, a perfect war manifesto;....and the property of your merchants, their ships, their merchandize, that are scattered over the globe....they would be embargoed in every port of France and Spain, and captured in all directions....The capital of your merchants would be destroyed, and the hopes of redress for former spoliations be destroyed with it; and then we should be little nearer the main object of redress, as to a place of deposit, than we are at present....on the contrary, a negociation will place your merchants on their guard, they will watch its result, and afford them an opportunity to secure their property.

Sir, as to national honor and dignity, he believed we have all a proper sense of it, and he would be one of the last on this floor to put up with insult and indignity from any nation; but, sir, as much as we have heard of it, he did not think we ought, without negociation, to resent every injury by war. In many cases, sir, national honor is only a convertible term for national interest, and he begged leave to relate an anecdote of a celebrated soldier on this head. After the failure of the attempted storm of Savannah, in the year 1779, count D'Estaing, who was wounded in the attack, and lay in that situation about five miles from Savannah, was visited by governor Rutledge and other gentlemen of South Carolina and Georgia. The governor having perceived some movements in camp indicative of a retrograde motion, told the count that his own honor and the honor of France were concerned in his remaining and taking the city. The count very mildly replied...." Gentlemen, if my honor is to be lost "by not taking the city, it is lost already;....but I deem my "honor to consist in the honor of my country, and that honor "is my country's interest!".... The time of operation in the West Indies was arrived, and the count re-embarked his troops.

Now, sir, is it not our duty to consult our country's interest, before we take this rash step, which we cannot recall? peace is the interest of all republics, and war their destruction ....it loads and fetters them with debt, and entangles not only the present race, but posterity. Peace, sir, has been the ruling policy of the United States through all her career....If we shew the citizens that we are not willing to go to war, and load them with taxes, they will all be with us when a necessity for war arrives. What, sir, was the policy of America, from the commencement of the revolution? At that day, did we hastily go to war? No; we tried every peaceable means to avoid it, and those means induced a unanimity in the people ....At the commencement many states were exceedingly divided, in some a majority were against us....yet, seeing the moderation and justice of our measures, and the rashress and tyranny of the British cabinet, they came over to our side, and became the most zealous among us....At the present moment, sir, the people are averse to war, they are satisfied with the steps of the executive, they wish negociation....if you adopt those resolutions, they will be still divided....if you negociate, and fail in that negociation....if you cannot obtain a redress of the injury which they feel as well as you, they will go all lengths with you and be prepared for any event; you will have this advantage, you will be unanimous....and America united is à match for the world. In such case, sir, every man will be anxious to march, he would go himself if called on, and whether the sluggish Spaniard or the French grenadier commands New Orleans, it must fall; they will not be able to resist the brave and numerous hosts of our western brethren, who are so much interested in the injury complained of. He was himself of opinion that New Orleans must belong to the United States; it must come to us in the course of human events, although not at the present day; for he did not wish to use force to obtain it, if we could get a redress of injury; yet it will naturally fall into our hands by gradual but inevitable causes, as sure and certain as manufactures arise from increased population and the plentiful products of agriculture and commerce. But let it be noticed, that if New Orleans by a refusal of justice falls into our hands by force, the Floridas, as sure as fate, fall with it. Good faith forbids encroachment on a pacific ally; but if hostility shews itself against us, interest demands it; Georgia in such case could not do with out it....God and nature have destined New Orleans and the Floridas to belong to this great and rising empire....As natural

bounds to the south, are the Atlantic, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Mississippi, and the world at some future day cannot hold them from us.

Sir, we have been told much by the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. WHITE) of Bonaparte, that he is the hero of France, the conqueror of Italy, and the tyrant of Germany, and of his invincible legions. Much as he respected the fame and exploits of that extraordinary man, he believed we should. have little more to fear from him than from the sluggish Spaniard. Bonaparte, sir, in our southern country, would be lost, with all his martial talents; his hollow squares and horse artillery would be of little service to him in the midst of our morasses and woods, where he would meet not with the champaigne country of Italy, with the little rivulets com manded by his cannon, which he could pass at leisure; nor fortified cities which command surrounding districts; but with rivers miles wide, and swamps, mortal or impenetrable to Europeans. With a body of only ten thousand of our expert riflemen around him, his laurels would be torn from his brow, and he would heartily wish himself once more safe on the plains of Italy. What, sir, would be forty or fifty thousand French, in those impenetrable forests, to the hosts which would be poured down the Mississippi. But, sir, should Bonaparte send an army of forty thousand men here, and they should not be destroyed by our troops,....within twenty years they would become Americans, and join our arms.... they would form connections with our females, intermarry with them, and insensibly change their habits, their manners, and their language. No other people can long exist in the vicinity of those of the United States, without intermixing and ultimately joining with them.

The sacred name of Washington has been unnecessarily appealed to, on this as on many other occasions, and we have been boastingly told that in his time no nation dared to insult us. Much, sir, as he revered his memory and acknowledged him among the fathers of his country, was this the fact? Was he not insulted....was not the nation insulted....under his administration? How came the posts detained after the definitive treaty by Britain? What dictated that inhuman deed to stir up havoc and destruction among us? Lord Dorches ter's insolent and savage speech to the hordes of Indians on our frontiers, to massacre our inhabitants without distinction. Were those not insults, or have we tamely forgotten them? Yet, sir, did Washington go to war? he did not, he prefer

L