The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1811-08-23

so doing have succumbed TO the acts of The
one power, for which We made war on the o.
ther. In the eloquent lsnguage os our la.e
minister to France lit is indeed true, tina
were the people of the United States dies
titute of pulley. of honor and Of energy
/ fas has been insinuated,) they might have
adopted a system of discrimination between
the two great beiiigerents; they might have
drawn imaginary lines between the first
and second aggressor--'hey might have re-
scented in the one, a conduct to which they
tamely submitted in the other, and in this
wayhave patched up compromise betwe cen
honor and interest, equally weak and dis
graceful. But such was not the course
they pursued, and it is perhaps necessary
consequeuceof the justice of their mea
sures. that they are at this day an indcpen-
dent nation" Since then, we could not
wage war against both, with any rational
prospect of success, nor select our antago-
INST without an implied submission 10 her
rival. the only alternative mode Of resisting
the operation Of these illegal and oppressive
edicts, with reasonable prospect of coerC
ing their repeal, was by commercial res
tr1ctions, which were peculiarly adapted 10
our position relatively tot the two be l!igerents
on account of our producing a great proper
uon ct the raw materials essential to the
support and even existence. of European
Supplying the necessaries of life TO the West
India islands This mode OF resistance was
attended with this advantage; that it could
be. maintained against both nations, and a.
bandoned for war, it unsuccessful in obtain
ing, within reasonable time, a properres-
pect for our rights: Whist waruust have
been against cus, involving submission to
the other, and if unsuccessful in obtaining
the object in view, must, nevertheless be
maintained at all hazards or terminated by
peace. involving disgraceful surrender
of our nationalrights.
Temporary commercial restrictions were
therefore resorted to, with the view of sub.
stituting war for them, If the cause of our
complaints gas NOT speedily removed This
alternative was adopted the more readily
because it was obvious to every unbia ssed
Judgment, that in the existing state of things
no commerce could be carried on with safe
ty to the prosecutors, much less 60 the gene
raj advantage. The correctness of this O.
pinioD, advancedhv republicans on the floor
OF Congress, and through the nation, subsc
quent events have fully proven. The pre-
sent rate of exchange between this coun
try and Europe and the late distresses in
New York and elsewhere. arising from the
return of pro ested bills drawn for produce
shipped for Europe, under these circum
stances, during the temporary suspension
oil our restrictive system. have afforded a
striking illustration of the faulty Of those,
who at that time argued, that lucrative
trade was cut ofby our restrictive system:
Some few, perhaps, of those who embarked
In so hazardous a commerce, made prosper
Gus voyages and acquired pril.cely fortunes
but far greater is the number of those who
all fell a sacrifice to the adventurous spirit
which prompted them to take their ca pital
on hazard. compared with Yhich, the cast
o! die was demonstrable certainty.
There was. indeed, at that time, among
the republican party, many honorable and
worthy men who favored what was called
more energetic course whose voice was
for war, with all the embarrassments which,
under circumstances, would have attended
it. But would the government. by placing
itself IN that attitude, have exhibited more
energy than by that which was substituted
for it :. BY energy. we understand that in
nate spirit which exhibits Itself in deIiber-
ate and efEcacious action--oot that impetu-
osity OF feeling and spirit which prompts us
to enter into promiscuous conflict but that
determined resolution which promptly a
dopts the course reason points out as the
most likely TO prove efficient for the object
in view. 1t was deemed more consistent
with the energy Of a neutral. seeking Only
respect for her rights from those who ag
RresSed on them, to essay to obtain IL by
refusing intercourse with the offenders, than
by rushing into war, and endeavoring thus
Ito obtain respect for our rights TO forfeit
its character of neutrality, and at once be-
come party to a disasterous and perhaps
interminable conflict. Il remains vet to be.
seen whether we shall be permitted to avoid
this last resort; whether we shall not be
compelled. abandoning all hope of the eff
eacy OF reason, to appeal to force. Be this
as it nay, we shall have deserved the res.
pect Of the world for our efforts in support
of the immutable principles of Justice and
shall. moreover, have obtained one object
the government has had steadily i'm view.
and has endeayored to accomplish by means
OF its restrictive system that of inducing
one of the belligerents TO retrace las steps,
leaving us only one TO contend With. and mar
rowing the field of controversy with that
one.
But why, it may be asked, employ orr
time in proving the proprety. and indeed
necessity, of at first adopting the policy of
opposing aggressioDs on our rights by com
mercial restrictions, recommended by Mp.
Jefferson, and approved by Nj. Smith In
Common with other republicans NotSi.h-
standing MIR. s. might have approved the
embargo, we reply. laithongh we doubt the
TACT; he has not claimed credit for it in his
book,) his objections to subsequent restric-
tive measures (Which he ascribes 20 the i'm
fiucnce of NJ Madison. go TO the principle
on which TIE first restrictions were founded
and are predicated. in fact, as stated before,
-