Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1819-02-09

Tells us, indeed, that the constitution was
especially violated by the capture of Pen
sacola, which he says was not only war i'm
form, but as II regards Spain il was con-
quest. That there was no eatrenie mecessify
tor the occupation of that fort, ifthere was
for that OF ST. Marks. Why has he, not
by chain Of reasoning brought the con-
stiinilon to bear on these propositions,
and gone on to point out respectively the
connections and discrepancies By lay
lug down those propositions. and saying
that they amount TO violation Of the
constitution, is any mans mind satisfied
confess my dull apprehension cannot
thus attain satisfaction. NV dull and
despised understanding cannot make a
hop, skip and jump BUSINESS OF this ques-
ton. NO,el had rather take il step and
step along. with all the circumspection OF
superannuaied decrepitude. There is 10,
word IN the constitution about eatreme
necessity, not word about forts, except
as well as my recollection serves, as TO
such forts as The United States shall erect,
having purchased tie sites for the same
from the states TO which they respectively
belonged. Well then The bearing of the
constitutions, was not so obvious, that
every common understanding like INV
OWN could readily discern it. Why then
has not this writer, perspicuous aud clear
(perhaps in his own es,ima,ioii) aud well
inforped as lie has been called even by
others, why has not this writer, ] say, pro-
ceeded 10 point out the application with
mnuteness q certainty, seeing too that he
thinks the thing SO palpable IL " hal AS.
has said upon the constitutional question
be logic, i do with all Differences admit,
that never had any idea OF logic before;
aud il am to derive The idea from that
specimen, greatly fear il will never pc
u traie the pores of my pe'icrani1m. Why
has not this writer, who seems 10 be so
intimate with Naltel, that he has discern
ed his peculiar manner of authorization"
why, say, has he not told us wherein
war, according TO the writer's Of national
law, consists, and whether they make any
difference between an entrance of neutral
territory and of neutral posts, when the
former as well as the latter is objected to
by the owner What superior sovereignty
has nation over fort more than over
any other part of lis territory How is it
IN any way more dear or sacred, than the
rest OF the country Is il because il is
strictly the property of the government?
never heard Of any thing like This, ex-
cept among the dissolute Eastern mon
archs, who were in the habit Of telling
their invaders, +" you may take the coun-
try, if you will barely let me and my wives
alone in our snug little fOrtresses." Was
the entrance into the Florida territory
objected 10 We have indubitable auiho-
rity for this, 10 which il must be needless
to refer. | wonder, for my part, that the
errantic Don Jose had not sailed forth,
Quixoite like, with his Rozinante capari-
soned, aud his aid de- camp Sancho, pre-
pared for windmill expedition TO The
lines. This character has done not lit
lie to revive the obsolete knight errantrv
OF his country. With this | should be
much diverted, bat for the fear OF lis dis
furbing the shade OF Cervantes, 10 whom
Don Joses defence of Pensacola, he will
probably by some future Amadis de Gaul,
or Amadis of Greece, be handed down to
late posierity, as knight of great ex-
ploits, against Gas suppose he will be
therein calledD the giant, or the old en-
chanter, Andrew Jackson, whom neither
the British, Indians, nor Spaniards could
kill, or even hurt. Surely If his Maria del
Toboso had been in Pensacola, an eve
witness of his achievements, he could not
have displayed more heroic contempt of
danger. But il was the principle of the
Knight Of la Mancha TO disregard the
number and strength of his opponents,
enemies they could not he called, as thew
meant no manner of harm to the knight,
and would willingly have declined any
encounter. But truce with raIllery. 1t
ought TO beremarked that the constitu-
ton Of the United States does not define
war, as IT does some other terms used
therein ecce treason. And why, Mr. Ed-
tor! because, sir, it was a most arduous
task 10 perform, and one which they fear
ed they could not execute in manner
conducive or consistent with the public
welfare. War may be described, but can
not in my opinion be defined in a few
words, SO as TO say, this is war and moth
ing else is war. Ii would be extremely
difficult TO comdense all The various kinds
OF war, into nne short proposition, so as
TO describe them accurately. These things
promised, what ought A. Sidney 10 have
done III order 10 have made his iiIustra-
tons, as clear and as satisfactory, as he
seems 10 think they are? Why, sir, he
should have told US what sort Of warit
was, wherein waged, and how this or that
act (uDder all the circumstances of the
case) amounted, TO this particular kind of
war. according to the writer's OH the law
OF nations, since the constitution has not
told us This, nor could not, by definition.
But sir, this writer never descends 10
such minute particulars as these arc. AS
j have SAID above, or minated, il is not
my intention 10 discuss the subject over
again, although ample as il is, could |
yet place it in anaIiitude somewhat new.
| will take the liberty 10 remark here, that
the abiest attack Which have yet seen is |
contained in Mr.. Cla,'s speech. lis elo. |
quence is transporting, The mind is ire
sIstibiy led 10 sympathy with the Indians. |
Ii is torrent which sweeps every thing |
before il, and the only way 10 resist or |