SPEECH OF JAMES A. BAYARD, ON HIS MOTION TO AMEND THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION, OFFERED BY MR. GILES, BY STRIKING OUT THAT PART WHICH IS IN ITALICS; DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, Resolved, That the several laws laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States, be repealed on the 4th day of March next, except as to Great Britain and France and their dependencies; and that provision be made by law for prohibiting all commercial intercourse with those nations and their dependencies, and the importation of any article into the United States, the growth, produce or manufacture of either of the said nations, or of the dominions of either of them. Ir will be perceived, Mr. President, by the motion which I have made to amend the resolution, offered by the honorable gentleman from Virginia, that I do not approve of the course, which it seems the government have determined at length to pursue. The honorable gentleman has told us, it is not his plan, and I give him credit for the fairness and candor with which he has avowed the measure to which he would have resorted. He would have raised the embargo and declared war against England. Being opposed, in this scheme by a majority of his friends, his next proposition was to issue letters of marque and reprisal; finding, however, that the other House had refused to go even so far, he had, on the principle of concession and conciliation with his friends, agreed to take the course proposed in the resolution, in hopes, that our vessels, going upon the ocean and being captured under the orders in council, would drag the nation into a war: when he presumed, the war being made upon us, we would agree to fight our enemy. Sir, it is upon this very ground, and considering this as its object, that I am opposed to the resolution. England is not our enemy, nor does a necessity exist to make her so. I am not going to deny, that we have many, and heavy complaints to make against her conduct, nor shall I contend, that causes do not exist, which might justify a war; but I mean to say, that policy forbids the measure, and that honor does not require it. The gentleman has painted, in very glowing colors, the wrongs and insults which we have suffered from British violence; he has recorded, in his catalogue, the offensive acts of British agents, as well as the injurious pretensions and orders of the government. I mean not to defend, nor even to palliate any aggression, public or private, against the rights or honor of our country; but, sir, I cannot conceal my surprise, that this gentleman, so much alive to British wrongs, should be insensible to every thing which we have suffered from France. The gentleman has exhausted the language of terms of invective and reproach against the British government and nation, but he has been silent as the grave, as to the French. How can it be, that what is wrong in Britain is right in France? And wherefore is it, that the same acts of France are borne with patience, which, proceeding from Britain, excite such a spirit of indignation? You have the orders in council to complain of; but have you not the decrees of his imperial majesty? We are told, that the orders in council give us laws, regulate our commerce, and degrade us to the state of colonies; but do they contain more, or do they extend as far as the imperial decrees? Do they make us more the colonies of Britain, than the decrees make us the colonies of France? And are we to invoke the spirit of liberty and patriotism to a resistance to Britain, while we are tamely yielding ourselves to French bondage? We are told of our vessels being forced into British ports and compelled to pay tribute; but nothing is said of their being invited into French harbors, and then seized and confiscated. With all the complaints against the British orders, and the silence as to French decrees, ought we not to be surprised in discovering, that the orders are exceeded in severity and injustice by the decrees? Let it be remembered, that this system of outrage upon neutral rights originated, on the part of France, in the Berlin decree. That decree, in effect, forbids neutrals to trade to England, or her colonies, or to purchase, or to carry their manufactures or produce. In commencing this system, France justified its principle, and compelled her adversary to retaliate by acts of the same injustice against neutrals who submitted to it. Tell me which we have first and most to blame, the one who set the example, or him who followed it? It is a consideration also of great weight, that at the time when the Berlin decree issued, France was bound to the United States by a solemn treaty to permit the trade which that decree prohibits; a treaty, signed by Bonaparte himself, and expressly providing for the freedom and security of our commerce with his enemy, in the event of war: and if the orders in council are a violation of the law of nations, they are not, like the French decrees, a breach of plighted faith. The orders leave to us the direct colonial trade. Our intercourse is not interrupted with the colonies and dependencies of France; but the decrees interdict all neutral commerce with the colonies and dependencies of England, as well as with the mother country. Your very ships, which enter an English port, are denationalized, and are liable, after the lapse of any time, though performing a voyage otherwise innocent, to seizure and confiscation. Another feature of injustice and iniquity, distinguishes the decrees from the orders. By the orders, our merchants are apprized of the commerce which is interdicted. Full time for notice of the prohibition is allowed, before the property is exposed, by a transgression of the orders, to be confiscated or seized. No such forbearance can be discovered in the decrees, which are to be indiscriminately executed upon the innocent and the guilty; upon those who never heard, or could have heard of them, in the same manner as upon those who knowingly violate them. I hope, sir, it will not be understood, that I mean to defend the orders in council, or to advise this nation to submit to them; but I could wish to direct some portion of the warmth and indignation, which has been expressed against them, against those decrees which produced them, and which exceed them in iniquity and outrage. The avowed object of the honorable gentleman from Virginia, is a war with England. On this subject, I make but one question; is it possible to avoid it with honor? If this possibility exists, the war ought to be avoided. And it is my opinion, that it does exist. To this opinion I am, in a great degree, led by a want of confidence in the sincerity of the disposition of our executive to settle our differences with Great Britain. Your measures have not been impartial as to the belligerents, and your negociations have not been sincere as to England. The gentleman from Virginia has called this charge of insincerity a miserable vision. I believe, sir, it is a miserable and melancholy fact; and if you will have patience with me, I will furnish proof enough to support the belief of the most incredulous. I mean to show, that your government has had it in its power to secure peace with Britain, by the settlement of the differences between the two nations, and that the means have not only been neglected, but means employed to prevent such a settlement from taking place. It will be necessary for us to consider what those differences were. They may be referred to three heads: first, the rule, as it is called, of the war of 1756: second, constructive blockades: third, impressment of seamen on board of American merchant vessels. I do not mean to say, that there were no other causes of complaint, arising from the indiscretions and insolence of British commanders; but they had not the character of national differences, and would, probably, have soon ceased and been forgotten, if the points of controversy between the governments had been amicably arranged. To settle the differences, which I have stated, a negociation was opened in London, in 1803, and carried on till December, 1806. It is remarkable, that while this negociation was depending and progressing, our government had recourse to a step, in its nature calculated to repel, instead of to invite, the British government to a friendly settlement. In April, 1806, they pass a law prohibiting the importation of certain British goods. The acknowledged object of this law was to coerce Britain to agree to our own terms. Did this law evidence a disposition to be friendly upon our part; or was it calculated to inspire a friendly temper on the part of England? It was fuel to the flame of discord. The British government is not less high-spirited and proud than our own, and the attempt to force them to terms was the likeliest course which could have been pursued, by provoking retaliation, to widen the breach between the two countries. This measure enforced, when negociation was going on and promised a favorable result, is no small proof, in my mind, that the executive was satisfied with the forms of negociation, but wanted no treaty with England. I proceed to inquire, whether our differences with Britain were not of a nature to be compromised; and if our government had been sincerely disposed, whether they might not have retained the relations of amity with that power. First, as to the rule of 1756. This rule was founded on the principle, that a neutral nation could not ac |