« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
tinental system of Buonaparte; and of the same complexion with the corresponding, co-operating measures of embargo and non-intercourse, the precious offspring of Jefferson and himself. It was Mr. Madison who arraigned our colonial system, and apologised for the French decrees as mere municipal regulations; who condemned Great Britain for prohibiting a trade with her open enemy, and excused France for cutting off America from all trade with friendly and neutral powers; who defended the infamous aggressions of Buonaparte on those powers, as a legitimate exercise of unquestionable sovereignty. It was Mr. Madison who wrote against the author of War in Disguise. It was Mr. Madison who, in a moment of intemperate zeal for his friend and ally, indiscreetly told Mr. Randolph that France wanted money, and must have it!' it was this same Mr. Madison who, when Secretary of State, did not disguise his opinion that England must fall in the strug with France, and that therefore the wisest policy for America to pursue was that of conciliating Buonaparte.
• Such is the picture of Mr. Madison's conduct in relation to the two belligerents, before he had the boldness to come out and declare himself on the side of France; before he dared to tell this people (as by his measures he has done) that their fortunes must be hereafter inseparably attached to those of Buonaparte, and that we must be tied to the chariot wheels of this conqueror, in his triumphal entry into his capital.'
But it is not merely the political partialities of the President that rouse the indignation of the New England farmer;' he is equally scandalized at his want of political veracity, which has destroyed all confidence in his public assertions; which has disgraced America in the eyes of the whole world by the gross exaggerations against Great Britain contained in his manifesto; and, among other things, by a repetition of his former message with respect to the pretended discovery of Henry's intrigues, wherein he asserts a calumny against his fellow citizens, which he knew to be false and unfounded.
* Instead of honourably acquitting the citizens of Boston, as he ought to have done, of any participation in Henry's views or designs, he boldly asserts that “ Henry was employed in intrigues with disaffected citizens in the United States, having for their object a subversion of our government, and a dismemberment of the union.”
· Now he well knew, at the time he penned that sentence, (and he has since repeated the same sentence in the manifesto) that Henry expressly declared that he never opened the subject of his mission to any citizen of the United States.
• A man capable of so insidious and unfounded an aspersion on the citizens of his own country, on men who will not yield to him in patriotism or spirit, inight well be expected to be little scrupulous about the terms height use towards a foreign nation, especially when those terms
of reproach fall in with the passions of the ignorant part of his supporters, whom it has been the business of their leaders to inflame and te deceive.'--p. 6.
Such is Mr. Madison's political character as described by the New England farmer. . His hostile feeling against England, and his partiality for France, will be farther developed as we proceed in the examination of his message to Congress, which impelled that body to declare, by a small majority, an offensive war against Great Britain. This examination will comprize the first of the five heads under which the farmer' arranges his arguments against the war, and the only one, in fact, in which · British interests' are particularly concerned. Under this head he has shewn, with great clearness, that all the charges brought forward by Mr. Madison against Great Britain are grossly exaggerated, and that they might all of them without exception have been adjusted, if the American government had been so disposed--but that the alleged causes of complaint have purposely been made to produce considerable irritation, in conformity with the expectations and wishes of France.
It was too remarkable a feature, in this message of the President, to be overlooked by the New England farmer, that the first and most prominent point should relate to the impressment of American seamen. The language of complaint is studied to inflame and irritate the passions of the populace; and, at the same time, an insidious attack is made on the British doctrine of claiming and taking her own seamen out of American merchant ships, though she does it on the established public law that every sovereign has a right to the services of his subjects, and especially in time of war--a doctrine maintained by all sovereign states, and sanctioned by the opinions of Grotius, Vattell, Puffendorff, and all other writers on the law of nations, and a practice enforced by Great Britain towards America, generally speaking, with more moderation than is consistent with so alarming, so serious, so distressing an evil, as that which results from harbouring English seamen in the merchant ships of America. That among a number of men sprung from the same parent stock, speaking the same language, having the same habits, and engaged in the same pursuits, an American may occasionally be mistaken for an Englishman, ought not to be a matter of surprize; much less of such wilful misrepresentations; for we have no hesitation in saying it is an absolute falsehood, though asserted by such high authority and in so formal and solemn a manner, that, under pretext of searching for her seamen, thousands of American citizens, under the safeguard of public laws, and of their national flag, have been toru from their country and from every thing dear to them.' We have stated in a former article that the whole nunsber of real Americans serving at any one time in our navy did not exceed one. thousand. On farther inquiry, we are perfectly satisfied that they do not amount to any thing like half that number; and that, instead of three out of four who carry about with them 'certificates of American citizenship,' nine out of ten are native Scotchmen or Irishmen. In corroboration of our statement let us hear the opinion of the New England farmer
The whole number of sailors, pretended to have been impressed from our ships, for fifteen years past, was 6258 out of 70,000, and of which all but 1500 have been restored. Of this remainder, at least one half are probably British seamen, and of the residue it is probable that at least another moiety entered voluntarily. The whole number of British seamen in their marine, or public ships only, is 150,000, and in their merchant ships, over whom they have a perfect control, 240,000. Is it probable, we ask, that for the sake of gaining 1500 seamen, they would hazard the peace of their country?"
Certainly not. We have already stated that the government has no desire for the services of American seainen in the British navy; and we believe that our officers feel as little desire to be troubled with them; but it is their duty to insist upon the right of examining the crews of American vessels, in order to ascertain whether any British seamen, or deserters from the navy may be evading the service of their country, under the feigned character of American citizens; which is the more necessary as the American government is known to encourage this disgraceful seduction. It is to check, as the Farmer justly supposes, the disposition of our seamen to enter into the American service, of whom, he says, it is generally admitted that they have from 30 to 50,000--to say nothing of those who are known to be serving in their ships of war from which we have disclaimed the right of taking them. But let us, with the author, consider the question in the abstract.
* A belligerent and neutral nation speak the same language and have the same general character. The belligerent wants her citizens for the defence of her existence. The neutral wants them for profit--the neutral offers thirty dollars per month, and the belligerent can afford but fifteen. The belligerent loses 40,000 seamen, which the neutral harbours and employs.
* The belligerent assumes the right to reclaim her own subjects, and so far as respects them she is right; she is supported by the law of nations; but in the exercise of this right instances of mistake or misconduct will occur: ought the neutral to complain unless she takes effectual measures to prevent the entry of the seamen of the belligerent into her service ? much less ought she to complain if she entices by high rewards, and countenances by fraudulent protections, such seamen of the belligerent in deserting the standard of their country;--yet such is the fact well known to every man on the sea coast-Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia employ three foreign seamen to one
American-yet these are the men from whom our complaints proceed.'
We have it indeed under the hands of fifteen hundred free electors of the county of Rockingham, in their eloquent and spirited memorial to Mr. Madison against the war, that the impressinent of American seamen is a subject of 'great misrepresentation;' that the number of cases has been extravagantly exaggerated;' that the reputed number bears little relation to the true number;'— that many of the memorialists, constantly employed in commercial pursuits from 1783 until the ocean became unnavigable, as to them, by the embargo of 1807, never suffered the loss of one native American seaman by impressment.' . It is well worthy of notice,' they observe, that the greatest apparent feeling on this subject of impressment, and the greatest disposition to wage war on that account, are entertained by the representatives of those states which have no seamen at all of their own.
Whence then proceeds all this prodigious whining about the cruelty of dragging American citizens on board ships of war of a foreign nation, of exiling them to distant and deadly climes, of risquing their precious lives in the battles of their oppressors, and of making them the melancholy instruments of taking away those of their own brethren? Such moral and pathetic preaching, as the farmer observes, sits but ill on the lips of that man who encourages the seduction of British subjects from their allegiance, and then compels them to turn their arms against their sovereign and fellow subjects. It ill becomes him to talk of the severity of British discipline, at the moment that a brave British sailor was brutally tarred and feathered on board the American frigate Essex, because he refused to violate his oath of allegiance! We will not stop to degrade the British navy by condescending to enter into any comparison between the high order, the discipline and comfort of an English man of war and an American frigate—we disdain any such comparison ; but we cannot forbear noticing the contrast between the honourable and manly feeling of Captain Dacres, (who, rather than desire men calling themselves Americans, to fight against their assumed country, submitted to weaken his already reduced crew,) with the infamous conduct of Rodgers, who, on his arrival at Boston, finding that neither art nor bribery could prevail on the Guerriere's men to forfeit their allegiance and become traitors, ordered them to be turned out into the street, with the view of accomplishing his purpose by exposing them to distress and staryation.*
The next unfounded assertion of Mr, Madison states, that the remoastrances' and expostulations' and the proposition of America 'to enter into arrangements respecting the impressment of American seamen, passed without effect. Has he forgotten, we would ask him, the communication made to him when Secretary of State, by Mr. Monroe, in which the latter distinctly says that Lords Holland and Auckland had proposed to him the basis of an arrangement, which they were ready to make ou that subject, and which he believed would be satisfactory to the two countries?' Has he forgotten that Mr. Jefferson thought fit to reject a treaty, honorable and advantageous to both countries, and expressly providing for this subject, which those two noble Lords had made and signed conjointly with Mr. Monroe and Mr. Pinckney? On which side were then manifested those conciliatory dispositions' of which Mr. Madison boasts?
* See Court Martial on Captain Dacres, and the Guerriere ship's company.
The expedient which Mr. Madison intimates, that British, or supposed British seamen, instead of being taken out of American ships by military officers, ought to be carried into some port for adjudication like other property, is quite worthy, as the farmer observes, of a man who lives in a slave state; but the American merchants will not feel themselves under great obligations for the suggestion of a plan which would carry their ships some hundred leagues probably out of their course, in order to establish the citizenship of some doubtful character on board.
If it be asked what object Mr. Madison can have in view by pushing into the foreground of his manifesto, with so many gross misrepresentations, the question of taking seamen out of American ships, we answer, the greatest that can actuate a weak but ambitious man-his existence as a political character hangs upon the issue of the ensuing election. It must be borne in mind that America is divided into two great parties, the federal party composed of the most respectable merchants and farmers of the northern states, and the anti-federal party, which embrace all those of the southern states, mostly in the interest of the French, together with the motley mob of all the sea-port towns. By the anti-federalists Mr. Madison was first brought into notice. Since that time his connections, his bias, and his prejudices, have invariably been French. By the French party and the mob, he was brought into power; by the same party and the same mob only, has he the chance of preserving it. We are at the same time willing to confess, that while we condemn Mr. Madison for shewing more partiality for France, and more malignant feelings towards this country, than is dignified in one vested with sovereign power, we are strongly convinced that the fault is partly attributable to the nature of the constitution of his virtuous, free and powerful nation'. It