The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1812-12-31

never had Carthage been DESTROYED Th,
| aistory az Europe, from Venice 20 G.. Bri
tam, is too tamidr to all who hear me tt
require reference to particulars. 1t is suf
hcicnt for ne to call the attention to the eff
tect OF naval power as it passed from matt
ON TO nation. What was the power cs -Ve.
nice and Genoa when they led the van oil
naval power How quietly did the sCeptre
OF Portugal rise as SIC assumed Il station on
the ocean---how Sink as She lost her naval
prcponderau.:e How did a navy once sup
pore the %nited Provinces. ana how 10 it
now the salvation of 6. Britain Ii is then
fact that naval armament gives effect to
the power OF a nation as does the musket s.
Dayonet, the cannon and the mortar. And
now, sir, Is it attempted, TO rebut this fact {!
by showing physical disability in the coun-
try to- aval' itscf of this force ? No: For
then would they be rebutted by the extent
OF our coasts, by the materials for ship build
ing so ample. and the known habits and pc
mus or our Countrymen as each Gav is e.
vincins. And here, sir. l wish could fol
low up the beautiful figure of my friend who
on former OCCASION Showed you our con-
tinent extending to either ocean, with the Fl s.
cure OF muniilcence pointing to the goodly
heritage.
We have then these facts: that a navy is
powerful mean ofnatioIal operation that
our local situation is fitted for its use and
that we have the necessary materials. To
which 1t is objected that your infant navy
must be opposed to one who has reached the
sull manhood ofpower on the ocean. ad
NIT IT. But shall we therefore abandon the
ocean, yield our birth right. our goouy he
ntage, without struggle? Or shall we not
rather, deducing argument from example.
like the gallant capt. Hull, avoid their fleets
and capture their single ships!
1 am aware that habit inDels Gonna to he
all rear on this subject. and the experience
on the past will not convince them. With
dlthdence, therefore, do 1 refer to the eff =
cheney OF twelve ships OF the line and TWEEN
~ trigates, as demonstrated last session.
Let me ask of gentlemen, who thus think,
VINO thus feel, TO examine the extent of
their argument Does it not go.not only 10 the
abandonment OF the ocean, but to the sea
coast also? I shall trust to former state
ments for the magnitude of this sacrifice,
with the observation that abandoning the O
cean involves the loss of 100000 tons of
shipping; and that i'll giving up the coasts,
you lose valuable portion of your soil and
some OF your fairest cities. l will not dwell
on the magnitude of this sacrifice, because
cannot believe that Americans will aban-
don any right which there is prospect to
maintain.
cannot, admit, answer as conclusively
before this force can be procured, vet, be-
heve, that a mind which relied on that OBJ
lection, might be satisfied that late prepa-
ration IS better than none. Nor could
mind, so circumstanced, fail to see, that
whilst making preparation you come every
day neareryo object; in negleCting it you
are every day farther from it, and YOU are.
in neglecting it, blending ultimate loss with
temporary sacrifice.
M. Amman 10 - g.,
or popular government to be deferred by
the want of preparation What is it that
the youth has not to prepare, or when was
1t that popular government taxed itself
with previous preparation But why this
argument of despair? What were your
preparations for the revolutionary war, and
when made After an army was in your.
country. Yet were they then made and
effectually made. BY the bravery of our
fathers our soil was secured on us it rests
to secure our rights on the water, common
to every independent nation, and as clear
ly ours as they are essential to our interests.
What is this argument of infancy? Had
not the navy of Great Britain beginning
Y es there was time when Britain had
no ship. What then She was invaded,
and more she was conquered. At this day
her wooden walls. as they are proverbially
called, are her defence and protection. Is
It admitted that the British fleet secures
her from attack! Ii SO, would not fleet
secure us from attack also ? But we have it
not. is 1t not then our duty, as guardians
of the public interest, to provide this pow
erful, this necessary mean of defence? But
some are alarmed at the cost. Permit me
to recur to the calculation of the last year
And hrst, as to the information derived
| from British experience; whose example
may be taken as precedent on maritime
subjects at least they make powerful
argument, where they are rejected as full
! proof. In recurring - nr:.:ch c-.;... z.:...
certainly was unexpected to the American
/ eye to see the same sum charged for a sol
dicr as for q sailor, viz: s per month ::
and as unexpected. on investigating the
British expenditures for series Of years to
find that the appropriations for the navy
arc found less than those for the army, as
viii be seen by reference to the Annual
! Register. In Confederation Of this is our
own history. a. appears from the cacula
tons made by my predecessor, Of which
viii avail myself.
Is it not then demonstrated by foreign and
! domestic experience that a naval force is
the cheapest the nation can resort to for De.
fence and protection [! Is it not also proved
that force believed to be competent might
be obtained at sum greatly within the
means OF the government, say twelve mil
! lions OF dollars, or fourth less than the or
binary amount OF revenue for year in good
times Test this subject in another wav {:
1 lrfs nee OF