bec, confined exclusively to the defence of that fortress. These they dare not march, in case of war, to any distance from Quebec, lest their retreat should be intercepted by a force, which could always be raised and sent in from the New England States, on a few days' notice. They could oppose no obstacle to the subjugation of the upper country. Independently of Quebec they had not more than two thousand or three thousand regular troops in both the Canadas, and these dispersed over a country as many miles in extent as there were numbers of men. They had no formidable fortifications. Most of the efficient force they could oppose to us, consisted in a raw and undisciplined militia of about twenty thousand, who were, in every respect, inferior to our own; inferior in arms and equipments, inferior in discipline, and, he might well say, inferior in national spirit. No reinforcement could be thrown in until the St. Lawrence becomes navigable, which will be about the last day of May; and we might safely calculate that no troops would reach the upper country before the first of July. Would it not, then be wise, (if our object really were to occupy the Canadas,) would it not be a saving of blood and treasure to calculate on an invasion before the time we had mentioned? We should all agree that it would; but, he would ask whether we had made any effectual provision for enabling the President to take such a course? We must attack Canada, if at all, with regular troops or volunteers, or both. When he spoke of regular troops in contradistinction to volunteers, he meant by the former, men on long enlistments, who make the profession of arms their regular business; and, by the latter, men engaged for a short period and for a definite object, although, strictly speaking, they were both regular troops and both volunteers. We had been told by some gentlemen, that the only proper force for this purpose was an army of regular troops; that they were more effective than volunteers; that it would be a wanton waste of the best blood of the country to send volunteers on such a service. He was ready to agree that regular troops were better than volunteers; but had we got them? We have passed a law to raise twenty-five thousand regular troops, but no reasonable man would say that they could be all raised in time to effect any important service during the present year. The officers were not yet appointed. The men were to be recruited in every part of the United States, from Maine to Georgia and Tennessee, and it would require some months, after their enlistment, to collect them together, and march them to some common place of rendezvous, on the enemy's lines. The ques tion is not, then, the abstract one, whether regular troops are better than volunteers; but whether it is better to attack Canada with volunteers, while we have nothing to oppose us but militia, greatly inferior to our own; or whether it will be better to delay a year, and then make the invasion with regular troops, when we shall be met not only by regular, but by highly disciplined veteran troops, every way superior to ours, and they, too, aided by an improved militia, and the H. or R. fortifications which this lapse of time will have given them an opportunity to erect. During this interval, too, we should be exposed to the miseries of a savage war along our Western frontiers; and, on the North, to the predatory irruptions of the Canadians. Mr. P. said, that he had never entertained any doubts on this subject; and, although he professed no skill as a military man, he could not hesitate in giving an opinion as to the course we ought to pursue. Let us, said he, raise fifteen or twenty thousand volunteers in the Northern and Eastern States. They may be easily obtained in companies, already associated, armed and disciplined, and ready to take the field by the middle of May. To these let us add six or eight thousand regular troops, or whatever number of the twentyfive thousand that shall then have been imbodied. With this army we may overrun Canada, with the exception of Quebec, in a few weeks. Let the army descend to some point on the St. Lawrence between Montreal and Quebec; there let a military post be established, and the regular troops stationed; there the soldiers may have time to become dexterous artillerists, and the officers practical engineers. And, when they shall have acquired a competent degree of skill and science in their profession, and have been joined by other regular troops, they may proceed at their leisure, to the siege and reduction of Quebec. As respects the injury to our enemy, Quebec were better in their hands than in ours. When its communication with the interior is cut off, the value of the Canadas will be lost to the British, and Quebec can only be supported at the immense expense of sending provisions from Europe. In the meantime, the volunteers may be detached from the Army, go into the New England States, be there reinforced, and proceed to the attack of Halifax and the Eastern provinces. The danger suggested the other day by the honorable gentleman from Georgia (Mr. TROUP) of proceeding to Halifax, before the reduction of Quebec, does not exist. The military maxim, that an enemy's post is not to be left in your rear, does not apply. The distance between those places is so great, the country so rugged, barren, and inhospitable, that it would be next to impossible to march an army from one place to the other. Beside, the garrison at Quebec would be always kept in check by our army stationed above it. During the whole of this time, the recruiting service would go on to supply the places of the volunteers, portions of whom would be successively dismissed, until the whole army would be converted into regular troops. If he was not greatly deceived as to the spirit and inclinations of the Northern people, there would be no difficulty in obtaining any number of volunteers that might be required, on the shortest notice. If the State of New York stood alone, unconnected with her sister States, and felt the same disposition to take Canada, which we profess to feel, she would have invited out her militia and reduced it in about half the time we have been talking about making preparations to do it H. or R. Provisional Army. FEBRUARY, 1812. erty of the citizens for the purpose of conducting the war; that, having a right to all the physical force of the nation for the purposes of war, we New York and Vermont will furnish the requisite But, said Mr. P., the question in this House His honorable friend from South Carolina, (Mr. CHEVES,) in his very ingenious argument on the volunteer bill, had not only most skilfully, but, he was fearful, too successfully, contended that Congress have the right to coerce the militia into foreign service. Others denied that they could be legally compelled into service, but insisted that they might be employed under a voluntary contract. Mr. P. said, he had given his opinion on this subject at an early stage of the debate on the volunteer bill; and all he had heard or seen since had only tended to confirm his opinion, that militia cannot be employed under the Federal Government in foreign war. After the able discussion which the question had undergone, he could hardly hope to add anything to influence the sentiments of the House. But, as the question was all-important in deciding on the proposition he had just submitted-as the adequacy of the forces already raised, and, of course, the necessity of an additional one, must depend wholly on the question, whether the militia volunteers can be marched to Canada, he would make a few remarks on some of the extraordinary propositions that had been advanced on this subject as Constitutional doctrines. that physical force. Independently of the questionable propositions laid down in this argument, his friend would pardon him for saying that the argument itself was not logical, inasmuch as his conclusion did not follow his premises. If the propositions are true. that we have a right to the physical force of the nation for the purpose of carrying on the war, and that we act, in respect to the war, as a national Government without the agency of the States, the true conclusion must be, that the militia cannot be employed in war. He wished to be understood as using the term war in exactly the same sense in which it had been used by the gentleman from South Carolina, as denoting a state of avowed, open, offensive war, in contradistinction to the defensive operations assigned by the Constitution to the militia. Are the militia a part of the physical force of the national Government? No, the militia are the artificial force of the States. They are the political institutions of the States. They are officered, commanded, and trained by State authority. They live, move, and have their being by the political breath of State authority, and the very moment that authority is withdrawn, they cease to exist. It does not follow, then, that, because we have a right to the physical physical force of the country for the purposes of war, we have, therefore, a right to the militia. But the converse of this conclusion follows from the other proposition, namely, that in regard to all the operations of war we act as a national Government, and State authority is not known; inasmuch as the militia in their organized capacity cannot exist, even in imagination, without supposing at the same time the continued existence and co-operation of State authority. The fair conclusion from the gentleman's premises is the true Constitutional doctrine for which I contend, that, if you use militiamen, who are the physical force of the nation, you must form them into federal troops, and commission them by national authority, which, the gentleman has correctly stated, is the onl only authority known in time of foreign war for the purposes of that war. man had been obliged to contend in the course of The positions advanced in the argument of the gentleman from South Carolina, if he had rightly understood them, were these: that the Government of the United States partakes of the twofold character of a federal and national govern- Among the difficulties with which the gentle ment; that, in some of its features, it is federal, or a government of States, operating indirectly his argument, he had been met at the threshold tional defence against domestic insurrection and pow. powers for particular purposes, and that all for which the militia are to be employed, excludes the idea of employing them for any other purpose. How does the gentleman avoid the force of this reasoning? Why, sir, he tells us that this provision of the Constitution is limited exclusively to a time of peace, and that he looks to a different part of the Constitution for a right to employ the militia in time of war. Whence is the idea of such a limitation inferred? The phraseology of the Constitution is general, and is applicable equally to all times. Do the occasions on which the militia are to be called out denote exclusively a time of peace? They are to be called out to execute the laws, to suppress insurrections, and to repel invasions. An invasion, as well as an insurrection, or an opposition to the laws, may, according to the gentleman's idea, occur in time of peace, or at a time other than that of open and declared war; but he must acknowledge that they are all as likely, at least, to happen in time of war as peace. Our ideas of the militia system were derived from Great Britain, whence we received most of our political institutions. It was fair, in this case, as in others, where we adopt their terms and systems, to look for definitions and explanations of them to their laws, without which they are generally unintelligible. The militia system in Great Britain was, placing arms in the hands of all the independent yeomanry of the country; organizing them into military corps; training and preparing them for efficient service. The objects were, to defend the country against foreign invasion; and to protect the liberties of the subject against domestic tyranny. The functions of the militia are regulated by the acts of Parliament. They are to be employed to execute the laws, to suppress rebellions, and repel invasions. These are the only purposes for which they can be employed, and to these they are equally applicable in time of war and time of peace. They cannot be used in foreign war; they cannot be taken out of the kingdom. The provisions of our Constitution in relation to the employment of the militia were, undoubtedly, suggested by those in the British statutes, of which they seem to be a transcript, only that we substitute the term "insurrection" for "rebellion," which means the same thing. We have one peculiarity in respect to the organization of our militia. They are officered and trained by State authority, instead of that of the General Government, to which is committed the power of peace or war. Why this precaution? Not, assuredly, to make them a more efficient military force, by dividing the command among the seventeen independent authorities, but for the obvious purpose of providing a protection to the State governments against the encroachments of the General Government. It is not to be supposed, then, that the framers of the Constitution, after showing such extreme jealousy towards the powers of the General Government as is exhibited in every part of it, and especially on the subject of the militia, would commit to this Government the sole power to declare war, and with it, the entire H. oF R. control of their militia, to be sent to any part of the world. If the militia are necessary to the protection of the State sovereignties in time of peace, they are emphatically so in time of war, when the States are surrounded by foreign and domestic armies. The distinction between the duties of militia and of an army, is simple and obvious. It is not only recognised in the Constitution, but in our bills of rights, and in public writers on the elementary principles of government-it exists in the nature of things. There are two distinct purposes to which the physical force of a nation is applicable-the one relating to its safety and existence, the other regarding only its policy. The duties of militia are, to execute the laws, to suppress insurrections, and repel invasions. Without this power to effect these purposes, Government could not be maintained. These duties are not optional, but compulsory; for, without the power to command their services for these purposes, society would be dissolved. The business of foreign war is a totally distinct thing-it is a matter of policy, and it can never be good policy to prosecute a war which has become so unpopular, that the whole pecuniary resources of the country will not enable you to hire men to carry it on. The services of the army are therefore voluntary. But we are told, that the right to employ the militia is incidental to the power of declaring war. This power to declare war, aided by the magical delusion produced by calling it a sovereign power, is made to include a right to the persons and purses of our citizens, for the purpose of conducting the war. The idea of deducting powers from our sovereignty, was, I believe, quoted from the works of General Hamilton-a man, the unceasing labor of whose political life was employed in attempts to break down the State governments and to establish a monarchial one in their stead. His favorite argument, when he wished to extend the powers of the General Government, was, that the Government was sovereign as to all the purposes for which it was established that war, for instance, was one of these purposes, and therefore, we are sovereign, or have discretionary powers as to all the operations and incidents of war. The argument meant nothing, or it meant too much. If it only meant that there were certain powers delegated to us by the Constitution, and that these were sovereign, it meant nothing as an argument to ascertain our powers, because the Constitution itself would always be the best and the only criterion to determine the nature and extent of those powers. If it was meant to confer powers which are not delegated, it was in direct violation of an express article of the Constitution. Sovereignty is the power to do as we please. It is a property which, strictly speaking, exists no where but with the Almighty. As to political sovereignty, whatever of it exists in this country rests with the people, who alone have a right to direct the powers of the Government. The essence of sovereignty consists in the exercise of an undefined latitude of discretion. The Federal Government is perhaps the last in the i world which can be called sovereign, because What are our powers in relation to war? We his power of conscription-the power which he have ceased to deserve to be free. Mr. P. said, that he would make only one or FEBRUARY, 1812 rather to take them for the law and the Constitution. Gentlemen seemed indignant at the idea, that the militia, for whom we never fail to express our just attachment in this House, could not go where and when they pleased. His friend from Kentucky (Mr. JOHNSON) had asked, the other day, with great emphasis and feeling: "What! shall not a freeman be permitted to serve his country?" He would answer: Yes; a freeman might be permitted to serve his country; but the very essence of that freedom consisted in the circumstance that he could not serve in the manner he might choose, but in the mode only which has been prescribed by law. Our liberty was that of the law, and not the unrestrained indulgence of our own wills. The laws have assigned certain duties to militia, and certain other and distinct duties to the army. A militiaman might join the armya whole company, or even a whole regiment of militia might turn out together, and agree with the Government to go and fight in Canada. But, by this very agreement, they would cease to be militia; having abandoned the proper business of militia and undertaken that of the army, they must be converted into Federal troops. The difserence between him and the gentleman was rather a difference of legal form than of substance. It arose from not attending to the peculiar and complex structure of our Government. If our Government, like that of Great Britain, were an integral one, and the army and militia under the exclusive control of Congress, there would be no difficulty-a simple agreement by the militia with the Government to go into foreign service, would, in that case, convert them into regular troops. But the militia and army are commissioned by, and act under distinct authorities; and if the militia engage in foreign war, they must put off those assume of the Gen their State liveries and two remarks in reply, particularly to the gentle- to convert gentlemen to his opinion. He had men who contend for the more palatable doctrine, in refutation of this doctrine. Our notions of liberty in this country are so extended, that we are some times apt to set them in array against the law and the Constitution, or Mr. P. said, that nothing but his sense of the importance of the proposition he had submitted, and of the importance of a fair understanding of this Constitutional question, to its success, could have induced him to try their patience on this dry and exhausted subject. He had not expected only hoped to satisfy them that he had reasonable grounds to doubt the correctness of theirs; and, if the subject were doubtful, to persuade them that it would be better to raise a force, of the efficiency of which there could be no question, rather than the militia volunteers. What to depend upon would be the situation of the President, if he were to send the militia, even by their own consent into Canada, and they should there refuse to continue in service, and to obey the orders of their officers? Would he willingly execute upon them the high and capital penalties of the martial law? He presumed not. He would not undertake to say what the President's opinion was on the Constitutional question. He had heard it was both ARMING THE MILITIA. H. or R. The House resumed the consideration of the bill for arming the militia; when Mr. B. HALL'S amendment being under consideration for limiting the operation of the amendment which gives to the respective State Legislatures the power of ways. As no man, however, had more confidence disposing of the arms as they may direct, to the in the correctness of the views of the President in respect to the powers of the Government, or, in his disposition to execute with integrity what he believed to be his official duties, than he had, he would pledge his reputation that the President would never march a militiaman into Canada with a view to its conquest. If he were correct then in this conjecture, what force had we given the President? We had made a parade in passing laws to raise twenty-five thousand regular troops, and fifty thousand volunteers, but, in truth and in fact, we had not given him a single man; and yet some gentlemen were complaining that the Committee of Foreign Relations had not reported a declaration of war. Should they insult the President by telling him to go to war, when he had not a man to fight with? Let us give him an efficient force, and then it will be time to authorize him to employ it. The question was taken without further debate, and the resolution was negatived-yeas 49, nays 58, as follows: YEAS-William Anderson, Stevenson Archer, David Bard, William Blackledge, William A. Burwell, Matthew Clay, James Cochran, Lewis Condit, William Crawford, Roger Davis, Samuel Dinsmoor, Elias Earle, William Findley, James Fisk, Thos. Gholson, Bolling Hall, Aylett Hawes, Joseph Kent, Wm. R. King, Abner Lacock, Joseph Lefever, Peter Little, Aaron Lyle, taking care of the arms Mr. ROBERTS said, that this amendment would. be at variance with the one already agreed to. Upon the whole, it did not appear to him likely, from the difficulties which attended the business, that anything could be matured on the subject at the present session. He, therefore, moved that the bill, with the amendment, be postponed indefinitely. The motion was negatived-yeas 35, nays 62, as follows: YEAS-Ezekiel Bacon, David Bard, Elijah Brigham, Harmanus Bleecker, Epaphroditus Champion, John Davenport, jun., William Ely, William Findley, Asa Fitch, Richard Jackson, junior, Lyman Law, Robert Le Roy Livingston, Alexander McKim, James Milnor, Jonathan O. Moseley, Thomas Newbold, William Piper, Timothy Pitkin, jr., Benjamin Pond, Peter B. Porter, Elisha R Potter, Josiah Quincy, Jonathan Roberts, William Rodman, Thomas Sammons, Adam Seybert, John Smilie, Lewis B. Sturges, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Uri Tracy, Charles Turner, jr., Laban Wheaton, Leonard White, and Robert Whitehill. NAYS-Willis Alston, jr., William Anderson, Stevenson Archer, John Baker, Burwell Bassett, William Blackledge, James Breckenridge, William A. Burwell, William Butler, John C. Calhoun, Martin Chittenden, Matthew Clay, James Cochran, Lewis Condit, Roger Davis, Elias Earle, James Fisk, Meshack Frank Thomas Moore, William McCoy, Samuel McKee, lin, Thomas Gholson, Charles Goldsborough, Peterson Alexander McKim, Arunah Metcalf, Jeremiah Mor- Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, Isaiah L. Green, Felix Grunrow, Hugh Nelson, Thomas Newton, Stephen Orms- dy, Bolling Hall, Obed Hall, Aylett Hawes, Jacob by, Israel Pickens, William Piper, James Pleasants, Hufty, Joseph Kent, William R. King, Abner Lacock, jun., Benjamin Pond, Peter B. Porter, Wm. M. Rich- Joseph Lefever, Joseph Lewis, jr., Peter Little, Wm. ardson, John Rhea, Ebenezer Sage, Thomas Sam- Lowndes, Aaron Lyle, Nathaniel Macon, George C. mons, John Sevier, Adam Seybert, Samuel Shaw, George Smith, Silas Stow, Uri Tracy, Charles Tur ner, jun., and Robert Whitehill. NAYS-Willis Alston, jun., John Baker, Burwell Bassett, William W. Bibb, Abijah Bigelow, Harmanus Bleecker, Adam Boyd, James Breckenridge, Elijah Brigham, William Butler, Epaphroditas Champion, Langdon Cheves, Martin Chittenden, John Davenport, jr., Joseph Desha, William Ely, James Emott, Asa Fitch, Meshack Franklin, Thomas R. Gold, Edwin Gray, Isaiah L. Green, Felix Grundy, Obed Hall, Jacob Hufty, Richard Jackson, jr., Lyman Law, Joseph Lewis, jr., Robert Le Roy Livingston, William Lowndes, Nathaniel Macon, Geo. C. Maxwell, Archibald McBryde, James Milnor, James Morgan, Jonathan O. Moseley, Anthony New, Thomas Newbold, Joseph Pearson, Timothy Pitkin, jun., Elisha R. Potter, Josiah Quincy, Henry M. Ridgely, John Roane, Jonathan Roberts, William Rodman, John Smilie, John Smith, Richard Stanford, Philip Stuart, Lewis B. Sturges, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, George M. Troup, Leonard White, William Widgery, Thomas Wilson, and Robert Wright. So the resolution was rejected. Maxwell, Thomas Moore, William McCoy, Samuel McKee, James Morgan, Jeremiah Morrow, Hugh Nel son, Thomas Newton, Stephen Ormsby, Joseph Pearson, Israel Pickens, James Pleasants, jr., Henry M. Ridgely, Samuel Ringgold, John Rhea, John Roane, Ebenezer Sage, Daniel Sheffey, George Smith, John Smith, Richard Stanford, Philip Stuart, George M. Troup, Thomas Wilson, and Robert Wright. The question was then taken on Mr. B. HALL'S amendment, which was negatived-yeas 51, nays 55, as follows: YEAS-Willis Alston, jr., William Anderson, Burwell Bassett, William W. Bibb, William Blackledge, John C. Calhoun, Langdon Cheves, Matthew Clay, James Cochran, Lewis Condit, Joseph Desha, Samuel Dinsmoor, Elias Earle, James Fisk, Meshack Franklin, Thomas Gholson, Peterson Goodwyn, I. L. Green, Felix Grundy, Bolling Hall, Obed Hall, Aylett Hawes, Jacob Hufty, Joseph Kent, William R. King, Joseph Lefever, Peter Little, William Lowndes, Nathaniel Macon, George C. Maxwell, Thomas Moore, Archibald McBryde, Samuel McKee, James Morgan, Hugh Nelson, Thomas Newton, Stephen Ormsby, Joseph Pearson, Israel Pickens, William Piper, James Pleas |