|
|
| & etc |
FEEDBACK
(C)1998-2012
All Rights Reserved.
Site last updated
13 January, 2012
|
|
|
| On the Seminole War
by Henry Clay
U.S. House of Representatives,
19 January 1819.
If my recollection does not deceive me, Bonaparte had passed
the Rhine and the Alps, had conquered Italy, the Netherlands, Holland,
Hanover, Lubec, and Hamburg, and extended his empire as far as
Altona, on the side of Denmark. A few days' march would have
carried him through Holstein, over the two Belts, through Funen, and
into the island of Zealand. What, then, was the conduct of England?
It was my lot to fall into conversation with an intelligent Englishman
on this subject. "We knew (said he) that we were fighting for our
existence. It was absolutely necessary that we should preserve the
command of the seas. If the fleet of Denmark fell into the enemy's
hands, combined with his other fleets, that command might be
rendered doubtful. Denmark had only a nominal independence. She
was, in truth, subject to his sway. We said to her, Give us your fleet;
it will otherwise be taken possession of by your secret and our open
enemy. We will preserve it and restore it to you whenever the danger
shall be over. Denmark refused. Copenhagen was bombarded, and
gallantly defended, but the fleet was seized." Everywhere the conduct
of England was censured; and the name even of the negotiator who
was employed by her, who was subsequently the minister near this
government, was scarcely ever pronounced here without coupling with
it an epithet indicating his participation in the disgraceful transaction.
And yet we are going to sanction acts of violence, committed by
ourselves, which but too much resemble it! What an important
difference, too, between the relative condition of England and of this
country! She, perhaps, was struggling for her existence. She was
combating, single-handed, the most enormous military power that the
world has ever known. With whom were we contending? With a few
half-starved, half-clothed, wretched Indians and fugitive slaves. And
while carrying on this inglorious war, inglorious as regards the laurels
or renown won in it, we violate neutral rights, which the government
had solemnly pledged itself to respect, upon the principle of
convenience, or upon the light presumption that, by possibility, a post
might be taken by this miserable combination of Indians and slaves....
I will not trespass much longer upon the time of the committee;
but I trust I shall be indulged with some few reflections upon the
danger of permitting the conduct on which it has been my painful duty
to animadvert, to pass without the solemn expression of the
disapprobation of this House. Recall to your recollection the free
nations which have gone before us. Where are they now?
"Gone glimmering through the dream of things that were,
A schoolboy's tale, the wonder of an hour."
And how have they lost their liberties? If we could transport
ourselves back to the ages when Greece and Rome flourished in their
greatest prosperity, and, mingling in the throng, should ask a Grecian
if he did not fear that some daring military chieftain, covered with
glory, some Philip or Alexander, would one day overthrow the liberties
of his country, the confident and indignant Grecian would exclaim,
No! no! we have nothing to fear from our heroes; our liberties will be
eternal. If a Roman citizen had been asked if he did not fear that the
conqueror of Gaul might establish a throne upon the ruins of public
liberty, he would have instantly repelled the unjust insinuation. yet
Greece fell; Caesar passed the Rubicon, and the patriotic arm even of
Brutus could not preserve the liberties of his devoted country! The
celebrated Madame de Stael, in her last and perhaps her best work,
has said, that in the very year, almost the very month, when the
president of the Directory declared that monarchy would never more
show its frightful head in France, Bonaparte, with his grenadiers,
entered the palace of St. Cloud, and, dispersing with the bayonet the
deputies of the people deliberating on the affairs of the State, laid the
foundation of that vast fabric of despotism which overshadowed all
Europe. I hope not to be misunderstood; I am far from intimating that
General Jackson cherishes any designs inimical to the liberties of the
country. I believe his intentions to be pure and patriotic. I thank God
that he would not, but I thank him still more that he could not if he
would, overturn the liberties of the Republic. But precedents, if bad,
are fraught with the most dangerous consequences. Man has been
described, by some of those who have treated of his nature, as a bundle
of habits. The definition is much truer when applied to governments.
Precedents are their habits. There is one important difference between
the formation of habits by an individual and by governments. He
contracts only after frequent repetition. A single instance fixes the
habit and determines the direction of governments. Against the
alarming doctrine of unlimited discretion in our military commanders
when applied even to prisoners of war, I must enter my protest. It
begins upon them; it will end on us. I hope our happy form of
government is to be perpetual. But, if it is to be preserved, it must be
by the practice of virtue, by justice, by moderation, by magnanimity,
by greatness of soul, by keeping a watchful and steady eye on the
Executive; and, above all, by holding to a strict accountability the
military branch of the public force.
We are fighting a great moral battle for the benefit not only of
our country, but of all mankind. The eyes of the whole world are in
fixed attention upon us. One, and the larger portion of it, is gazing
with contempt, with jealousy, and with envy; the other portion, with
hope, with confidence, and with affection. Everywhere the black cloud
of legitimacy is suspended over the world, save only one bright spot,
which breaks out from the political hemisphere of the West, to
enlighten and animate and gladden the human heart. Obscure that by
the downfall of liberty here, and all mankind are enshrouded in a pall
of universal darkness. To you, Mr. Chairman, belongs the high
privilege of transmitting, unimpaired, to posterity the fair character and
liberty of our country. Do you expect to execute this high trust by
trampling, or suffering to be trampled down, law, justice, the
Constitution, and the rights of the people? by exhibiting examples of
inhumanity and cruelty and ambition? When the minions of despotism
heard, in Europe, of the seizure of Pensacola, how did they chuckle,
and chide the admirers of our institutions, tauntingly pointing to the
demonstration of a spirit of injustice and aggrandizement made by our
country, in the midst of an amicable negotiation! Behold, said they,
the conduct of those who are constantly reproaching kings! You saw
how those admirers were astounded and hung their heads. you saw,
too, when that illustrious man, who presides over us, adopted his
pacific, moderate, and just course, how they once more lifted up their
heads with exultation and delight beaming in their countenances. And
you saw how those minions themselves were finally compelled to unite
in the general praises bestowed upon our government. Beware how
you forfeit this exalted character. Beware how you give a fatal
sanction, in this infant period of our Republic, scarcely yet twoscore
years old, to military insubordination. Remember that Greece had her
Alexander, Rome her Caesar, England her Cromwell, France her
Bonaparte, and that if we would escape the rock on which they split
we must avoid their errors.
How different has been the treatment of General Jackson and
that modest, but heroic young man, a native of one of the smallest
States in the Union, who achieved for his country, on Lake Erie, one
of the most glorious victories of the late war. In a moment of passion
he forgot himself and offered an act of violence which was repented of
as soon as perpetrated. He was tried, and suffered the judgment to be
pronounced by his peers. Public justice was thought not even then to
be satisfied. The press and Congress took up the subject. My
honorable friend from Virginia, Mr. Johnson, the faithful and
consistent sentinel of the law and of the Constitution, disapproved in
that instance, as he does in this, and moved an inquiry. The public
mind remained agitated and unappeased until the recent atonement, so
honorably made by the gallant commodore. And is there to be a
distinction between the officers of the two branches of the public
service? Are former services, however eminent, to preclude even
inquiry into recent misconduct? Is there to be no limit, no prudential
bounds to the national gratitude? I am not disposed to censure the
President for not ordering a court of inquiry, or a general court-martial.
Perhaps, impelled by a sense of gratitude, he determined, by
anticipation, to extend to the general that pardon which he had the
undoubted right to grant after sentence. Let us not shrink from our
duty. Let us assert our constitutional powers, and vindicate the
instrument from military violation.
I hope gentlemen will deliberately survey the awful isthmus on
which we stand. They may bear down all opposition; they may even
vote the general the public thanks; they may carry him triumphantly
through this House. But, if they do, in my humble judgment, it will be
a triumph of the principle of insubordination, a triumph of the military
over the civil authority, a triumph over the powers of this House, a
triumph over the Constitution of the land. And I pray most devoutly
to Heaven that it may not prove, in its ultimate effects and
consequences, a triumph over the liberties of the people. |
|
| |
