The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1841-07-31

Omnes aiiud agenter, ahud stimulates perfdi, i'm
prob, Iaalttiosa stunt. - Cicero
In former number We had occasion to make some
remarks on Mr.. Webscrs conduct during the late
war the true character Of which 10 have been
but little understood and have excited considerable
attention We are happy, therefore, in the opportu-
NIFTY now afforded us OF calling the public attention
once more To this subject; and although our notice
will be chiefly directed points of subsidiary nature
yet Uncover reflects on the intimate connexon which
these matters have with the events Of the late war;
and that IN right understanding OF them involved
sures pursued at this eventful crisis, will not ven
ture To hope, regard the length of disqulston
disproportionate TO its real value.
II must be remembered, that in the history Of this Re-
public that three great and important questions divided
the country into parties Of which grew violent POI
ltca conflicts, viz, the embargo, the Bank of the
United States and the War. These questions
considered as test questions NTH the Republican party
The embargo was viewed by Mr.. Jefferson, a
sure well calcu lated TO operate on the commercial in
terests of Great Britain, and thus constrain her to
abandon her maritime system of warfare During
Mr. Madisons administration, the ~ stem of mea-
sures was attempted TO be carried out TO press down
and embarrass the commercial operations of rival
II was in other words, of the strongest
character and advocated such by the friends OF the
Administration.
On the 9th of May, 1873, the Congress of the
United States assembled. The Committee of Foreign
hcldtoHs COHsislfu Oi htssTS 1alHOuni 1funuy.
Desha, Jackson, of Va, Ingersoll, Fisk, of ~ u,
and Webster.
This committee, it will be perceived, was composed
Of men OF great talent and extensive information. In
July, 1913 the Committee on Foreign Relations made
report, recommending an embargosbn all ships and
vessels in the harbors and ports OF the United States
Among the nays we find Messrs. Calhoun, Cheves
Duval, Hufty, Kent, Of Maryland Lowndes, Stanford
Yeas rs, nays 81 1t is tact, well established that
those members who voted in the negative as quoted
W. he frpn1s IF Mr. al
ton.
In the Senate, July 27th, 1873 the vote was taken
on the same proposition, to lay embargo Among
those who were numbered among the Administration,
Anderson, of Tennessee, Bib6, of Georgia
Fromentin, GILES OF Virginia, voting against the bill
which had passed the House Of Representatives, to
lay an embargo British shipping found in the ports
OF the United States Yeas IT, nays Is.
Thus II is, at this emlnenly critical period, find
many of the most distinguished of the Republican par
ty entertaining opinions directly with the ma
Jorty. We lind them standing on the floor of Con
gress resisting with their influence and abilities mea
sures which have been recommended by the Execu-
tive, as The means of reducing the maritime power of
our ambitious enemy. The embargo considered
as much Of war any other that was acted
upon by Congress-as much any measure which
Mr.. Webster ever resisted How, then, will The Lo
cooco party reconcile their denunciaons of MIR
Webster, and their support Of Calhoun Cheves, and
Giles Mr. Webster only exercised his independent
judgment in opposing any system of policy which he
believed was nmical to the interests OF the people
Messrs Calhoun, Cheves, and Giles exercised the
same prerogative, of resisting and supporting such
they onceived conducive Of or peIncious
to the public welfare. Those distinguished ndividu-
ais, doubt entertained the exalted sentiments
OF regard and confidence in the integrity and patriot
ism OF the ustiious individual at the head Of the Go
veTnment, but they could make sacrifice of the
honest convictions of their mind the shrine Of those
sensbilltles engage in the support of a
fectng the best interests of the country which
rejected by their most deliberate judgments fthese
benevolent rules are applicable to the Republican par
ty, who resisted the adoption of the embargo, | will
ask, upon what intelgible principle will you exclude
It's applicability TO the political conduct of Mr.. Web
sterl His case is precisely analogous. He, in the
ercse of his independent judgment, differed with the
Republican party in relation TO the policy of the Ad-
mInistration and on occasions, opposed it, yet
his opposition is stgmazed, by the partisans of the
present day, as unpatrioc.
hatteT myself that have shown that on the en-
barge question, that there great diversity of
opinion, and that if ii be viewed of the test
questions of party adhesion, that many Of the promi
adherenls of the then administration gully
of desertion from the tue standard of this party. IT.
then the mputation of want of love OF country, at
taches to all those who resisted the measures OF Mr..
Madlsons Administered II embraces large number
Of the active friends of the Republican party of
that day. The history of the country developes one
important fact that many politicians, for the graca
ton of their revenge and inordinate last of power
during the political canvass in 1923 "a made series
of insinuatons against the late William II. Crawford
account of the support which he gave the repeal
o. the embargo, while member of the Senate Of the
United States. With what promptitude they
repudiated by the press in Virginia what high in
dignation those inslnuaons reused among his friends
that unpatrotc considerations should be attributed 10
his honest difference OF a measure, which he believed
seriously affective 10 our commercial success
independent nation Who believed these base insnua-
tons Was not the Richmond Enquirer foremost IN
his defence again repeat that this embargo was,
IN 1905, cmPhdticdHyd rdr measure and recommends
ed TO Congress restrictive OF the rights of Great
Britain ia trading To the ports OF the United States
But the proceedings of Congress furnish other proof
than the Cases already referred TO- of the Republican
party entertaining discordancy Of views in relation
to The measures OF the administration ! have al
ready remarked that Mr.. Chevcs was a prominent and
distinguished member of the administration. He stood
in the Congress of the United State, one Of the
coad tutors of Calhoun Clay, and Grundy, in propping
up and sustaining the measures OF the Executive and
no member shed the propositions discussed in that
body mole light, and disenangled complicated ques
tons satisfactorily than he. But what does he
say in relation to the declaration of wal he says,
have hesitation in admitting, for shall speak with
the utmost candor, that, had knowa of the rerocdtion
of the orders in council al The moment Of the deeidrd
ton Of mould not have voted Tor IT. See his
speech on the Loan Bill
In the first place we find Mr.. Cheves opposed TO the
declaration ofwar.
Again in the speech, he remarks; " That !
pass from the to the conduct OF the war. The
past conduct OF the This, think cannot he
defended, and as have not been an lndiscrImnate
supporter of the measures and policy OF the Govern
ment | must not be indiscrimnate apoogit OF the
conduct OF the But, although 1t cannot be en-
tirely defended, it may admit OF some excuse - De-
ba,e on the Loan Bill, Feb II, 1914
Now here is the distinct avowal, by friend and sup
porter of the administration, who advised the adop-
ton of measures and who enjoyed the influence
of the Republican party that the measures OF the Gov
eminent were indeensblethat he has not been an in
discriminate supporter of The policy Of that admins
uation. Did he in consequence OF this annunciatIon
of his OF action, forfeit the confidence of his
political friends : Did they impute 10 his political acN
ton nnrorLhn or ln inst impntaiions Most assuredly