her battles. The people see all these things, they have felt them, and can no longer be deceived,

Sir, while they guard against internal foes, the people are not indifferent to their rights, nor unwilling to maintain them, at every hazard. The business of New Orleans is in the hands of the executive, and the people confide in their own choice. If his efforts fail by negociation, the people will not fail to unite with one voice, and one arm, at the call of the government of their country,

Mr. W. C. NICHOLAS. If this was an ordinary ques tion, his indisposition would prevent his taking any part in the discussion; but as the representative of a state, more than one third of whose territory lies on the western waters, and which has upon all occasions manifested the most anxious solicitude to preserve our rights to the navigation of the river Mississippi, he felt himself bound to state to the Senate the reasons upon which he considered the propositions of his friend from Kentucky, entitled to a preference to the resolutions offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. However irksome it may be to him, he will never shrink from the discharge of a public duty, from personal considerations. Upon the present occa sion, he would endeavor, as much as possible, to avoid a repetition of what had been said by others in favor of the amendment, and in opposition to the original resolutions. To make this the more certain, his observations should be more in the form of a reply to what had been said in support of the resolutions first offered, than a regular argument in favor of one proposition, or in opposition to the other. Had the gentleman who introduced this discussion, dealt frankly with the Senate, or understood the views of his own friends, and at once informed us what nations he meant to go to war with; what the objects of the war were to be; and the extent of the proposed conquests, much time and trouble would have been saved. When the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Ross) opened his war project, his resentment appeared to be confined wholly to Spain; his sole object the securing the navigation of the Mississippi, and our right to a convenient place of deposit on that river.

We were told by that gentleman, that we are bound to go to war for this right, which God and nature had given the western people. What are we to understand by this right, given by God and nature? Surely not the right of deposit, for that was given by treaty, and as to the right of navigation, that has been neither suspended nor brought into question.

But

we are told by the same gentleman, that the possession of New Orleans is necessary to our complete security, leaving to the gentleman's own conscience to settle the question as to the morality of taking that place, because it would be convenient ; he would inform him that the possession of it will not give us complete security. The island of Cuba, from its position, and the excellence of its harbors, commands the gulph of Mexico as completely as New Orleans does the river Mississippi, and to give that complete security that he requires of the President, the island of Cuba must likewise be taken possession of, It has been shewn that the measures proposed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and he would again demonstrate it, if it was necessary, are calculated to bring upon the western country, all the mischiefs that gentleman has depicted as resulting to them from a loss of the navigation of the river Mississippi. If we are driven to war to assert our rights, the western people must make up their minds to bear that loss during the war; for without a naval superiority which we have not and cannot obtain, or the possession of Cuba, we shall not be able to avail ourselves of the navigation to any useful purpose. Although we may take possession of the Floridas and New Orleans, it is from a conviction of its pernicious effects upon the western country as well as other reasons, that he was averse to appealing to arms as long as there is a prospect of attaining our object in another way. It has been said in this debate, that war cannot take place without the interference of Great Britain, which he presumed is relied upon to give us a naval superiority, This, Mr. President, would be opening to us a new scene....at some period or other we may find ourselves forced to seek alliances with some power that has a considerable naval force; he could conceive a state of things that would make it prudent....But it certainly is not our interest or policy to precipitate ourselves into a situation that would make that a necessary measure. We have been warned by the experience of other nations, and by the admonitions of our most enlightened citizens, to avoid entangling alliances, to keep ourselves clear of such a connection with European nations, as would probably make us a party to all their wars; and hetrusted that when a necessity did exist, if it ever should, there will be found wisdom enough in that department of our government in whom the power of negociation is vested to anticipate such a state of things.

It seemed to him that to begin a war upon such an expectation, and to depend upon future negociation for forming

connections to carry us through it with success, would be a system of policy too weak and childish ever to be pursued by an American Congress. It would be to submit the interest, and perhaps the honor of this country to a nation who would extort from us sacrifices as injurious as a disadvantageous peace would impose. And it must be obvious, that without the most discreet use of the power vested in Congress to make war, and a perfect co-operation between the treaty making power and the legislature, we shall subject our country to the greatest difficulties in this way. He would say nothing of the present state of Europe, to shew that there may be an indisposition in any nation to go to war, nor of the rival and conflicting interests of any nation with those of the United States. Every gentleman has full information upon these subjects, and wili appreciate them as they merit,

The gentleman from Pennsylvania, probably distrusting the success of his measures, if they depended exclusively upon the act of the intendant of New Orleans, has brought into view, aggressions committed upon our commerce during the late war, and which that gentleman knows are in a train of adjustment, and could only have been mentioned by him with a view to produce the greatest possible degree of irritation against Spain. Upon this part of his argument he would make some further observations hereafter, As the discussion advanced, new objects and new adversaries were successively developed, until from the recovery of a commercial privilege, we were gradually led on to the emancipation, and indirectly to be the arbiters of the old and new worlds. The gentleman from New York, finding the weight of argument against him, and that a resort to arms would not be justifiable upon the ground taken by his friends, with a boldness and promptitude that characterizes veteran politicians, has not only assigned new and different causes for war, but new objects, and a new and more powerful enemy to cope with.

He no doubt felt the force of the arguments that have been used to shew the improbability that Spain would autho rize an act that would produce a rupture with this country, at the moment that she was parting with Louisiana, and when she could not possibly derive any advantage from the wrong that she could do us by that act; and at a time when we know from unquestionable evidence that it is the desire of Spain to cultivate a good understanding with this country. He could give no credit to the suggestion, that the first Consul had required Spain to take that step. He knows that character too

well to believe that he would attempt to throw a responsibility upon others, for his measures, nor indeed could it be shewn that the first Consul would be in any way benefited by it; he knows the American character too well to believe that any of the reasons that have been assigned by his friends who have preceded him in this argument, would form a justification for a declaration of war, without a previous demand for a redress of the wrongs that we have sustained. He knows that our countrymen, with a courage and perseverance that does promise success in any war, are at all times ready when it is necessary to assert their rights with arms, but that they will not be employed in wars of ambition or conquest; and above all, he sees the folly of going to war with Spain, and taking from her a country that we should be obliged in honor and justice to give up to the French, perhaps the instant after we had taken possession of it....for if France would reinstate us in the rights and privileges that we hold under our treaty with Spain, I demand of the gentleman from New York, if he would wish this country to hold possession against France; and if he would, upon what ground he would justify it?

The cession was made to France before the injury done us by the Spanish officer: knowing this we take the country; upon France demanding it of us, we should be bound by every principle of honor and justice to give her possession, upon her engaging to respect properly our rights. Spain having injured us, surely will not justify our committing an outrage of the most injurious and insulting nature upon France. Would conduct like this, comport with the gentleman's ideas of national honor, about which we have heard so much in the course of this debate? Can it be, that an act, which, if perpetrated by an individual, would be robbery, can be justifiable in a nation? And can it be justifiable in the eyes of men, who believe there is nothing so precious or important as national honor? Can the usefulness or convenience of any acquisition justify us in taking from another by force, what we have no sort of right to? If these things come within the pale of his (Mr. MORRIS's) laws of honor, for my country I disclaim all obedience to them! The gentleman (Mr. MORRIS) has said, that the ceding of a country by the possessor to another country, is a good cause for war to a nation in the neighborhood of the country ceded. In this doctrine, he believed, the gentleman would find himself unsupported by any authority, or by the practice of nations; he would, on the contrary, find example constantly against him. Did Great Britain make war on Spain

In

or France, when Louisiana was ceded by the latter to the former? No. How is such a war to terminate? Should we be authorised to conquer the country, and hold it for ourselves? or must we make war with Spain and France, until we can oblige the former to resume the possession and government of the country? The cession to France cannot give us a right; and to make war for the restoration of the country to Spain, would be a madness unrivalled by any thing that has happened since the crusades for the recovery of the Holy Land. this dilemma, the gentleman from New York, (Mr. MORRIS) abandons the ground taken by his friends, and instead of joining the gentleman from Pennsylvania, in charging the Spanish government with the blackest and most wanton perfidy towards this country, he speaks of that nation as disposed to do every thing that honor and good faith can require of her, but that she is humbled to the lowest state of degradation by the force of a superior power....in short, what he has said of that country is more likely to excite our commisseration than our vengeance: accordingly, the gentleman from New York (Mr. MORRIS) disdains a conflict with a nation that has been made the unwilling instrument of doing us wrong.

He put out of view all the considerations that influenced his friend from Pennsylvania; by the sound of his voice he dispels the whole force that his friend had brought up in martial array against us....throws away the mask and declares that France, not Spain, is the nation we are to go to war with. He would, as concisely as he could, recapitulate to the house, the principal reasons given by the gentlemen for going to war with France. The cessionof Louisiana is a sufficient cause for war; upon that subject he had said enough to shew its absurdity. We are told, and even by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr.Ross) that it is necessary to prevent the French from taking. possession of that country, or they will seduce the people in the western parts of these states. This is the most extraordinary argument that ever was used, connected with what was the professed object of the resolutions under consideration. The object of the resolutions was said to be, to secure to those people the free navigation of the river, and a convenient place of deposit for their produce. This measure can alone be justified by a belief that we shall not be permitted to enjoy these important rights. This was at first said, but now it is openly avowed, that there is no fear of that sort; and the gentleman from New York, (Mr. MORRIS) not satisfied with insinuating this, has told us in plain terms, that France will not only