Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856.

DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 675 FEBRUARY, 1835.] Relations with France. [H. OF R. affairs in a country between which and our own accord in opinion with that gentleman, nor the relations of amity still subsist; but when vote for the motion which he had made. The our own rights and claims are made the sport proposition of that gentleman was founded on of the state of parties in a foreign country, it the belief that the House was bound in honor is a fair subject of comment. The King will and policy to act upon the French question do his utmost to effect the fulfilment of the during the present session; and that, unless treaty, and not merely because it is a just the committee should report by Monday week, treaty, but because (as he told Mr. Livingston) the session was in danger of elapsing without his faith as a sovereign, and his honor as a any due discussion of the subject or action upon man, are pledged. But what is the position it. If Mr. G. believed in the supposed necesof the King himself? Does not all the world sity, he should certainly approve and vote for know that he does not fill the throne on the the motion; but if it was true that the House principles of what is called legitimacy? That could not and ought not to act upon that subject there are two powerful parties in France, at all, then the motion was improper, and agreeing in nothing else, but united in oppo- ought to be rejected. Why was the House sition to the present establishment of the Gov- bound to act? Because it was in possession of ernment? I mean, of course, the party of the all the facts which were necessary to enable it late dispossessed family, on one side, and the to act definitively in the case? Surely not; extreme liberals on the other. It is, as far as and if the House did not possess the facts it we can judge at this distance, mainly a combi- ought not to act, because it was improper to nation of these two parties, taking along with act without them. Might it not happen that, it, of course, the natural opposition to all heavy at the time pointed out, the House would still money bills, which has hitherto defeated the be without the requisite information? So far execution of the treaty. as they could now see, nothing was more probWith these two parties, instead of our gain- able. And how, then, could it, with propriety, ing strength from the circumstance that the act at all? The course to be pursued depended King's regal word and personal honor are on the state of this question: has the French pledged to fulfil the treaty, it is precisely for Government refused to carry into effect its this reason that they oppose it. And they treaty with the United States? The House oppose it, not with a zeal measured by the could act on no other ground, and all the simple merits and consequence of the treaty, threats about what we would do, and all pledges but with an intensity of purpose, and depth of given beforehand, as to the course to be adopted, feeling, inspired by their hostility to the Gov- were untimely, impolitic, improper, and calcueminment. Seeing the opposition to the treaty lated to do nothing but injury. The question thus conducted by parties, who would move of peace or war was an important one. It was heaven and earth to shake the King from his the greatest question on which the nation had throne, I own, sir, I look to see this question to pass. It not only touched the public honor linked in with the very elements of the perma- and interest, but it came home to the concerns nence of the present order of things in France. of every citizen. On such a question, why did Could it be reduced simply and solely to this gentlemen urge the House to act before it could issue, all might be well; but with this powerful, act understandingly? Were they not all agreed deep-seated, far-reaching opposition, we must that the Government of this country was so fear, as I have said, that what may be called constituted that we ought never to go to war the natural opposition to all such measures will but after the greatest practicable forbearance? unite itself. The King will do every thing to Was not peace our avowed policy? Why, then, carry the treaty into effect. I am sure, if it should we enter into these premature discuswere necessary, he would shed his blood to sions? The reflections and menaces thrown fulfil it. I should hear with deep regret a out under such circumstances, were unworthy single word that would cast a shade of doubt of the House and injurious to the character of on his sincerity. But whether he will even be the nation. He had heard much said about the able to sustain himself, who shall vouch? I national honor, and about the necessity of vintrust he will. I believe it highly desirable for dicating the national honor. But, after all, the peace of France, and the harmony of what were the rules of this national honor, of Europe, that he should. I have little doubt, which gentlemen spoke so much and so loudly? should his Government be overturned, it would By what was it to be regulated? It might do be followed by disastrous consequences, not when crowned heads fell out about questions of unworthy the high breach of faith toward the personal dignity, or interest, to talk about rules United States, with which the war against it of honor, and about being bound by their honor seems to have commenced. to resent each other's acts. But the principles Mr. GILMER, of Georgia, said that he felt which actuated and governed this nation, and himself called upon, by the remarks which had which, he trusted, would ever guide this Govfallen from the honorable gentleman from Massa- ernment, were not the capricious rules of a chusetts, (Mr. ADAMS,) as well as by the motion fancied honor, but the doctrines of national law. which he had introduced, requiring the Com- If war should come, gentlemen would find that mittee on Foreign Affairs to report at an early it was not to be carried on by flourishes of day, to present the reasons why he could not rhetoric.

Pages

About this Item

Title: Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856.
Author: United States. Congress.
Canvas: Page 675
Publication: New York, [etc.]: D. Appleton and company [etc.]; 1857-61.
Subject terms: United States -- Politics and government

Technical Details

Collection: Making of America Books
Link to this Item: https://name.umdl.umich.edu/ahj4053.0012.001
Link to this scan: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moa/ahj4053.0012.001/677

Rights and Permissions

These pages may be freely searched and displayed. Permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically. Please go to http://www.umdl.umich.edu/ for more information.

IIIF

Manifest: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/api/manifest/moa:ahj4053.0012.001

Cite this Item

Full citation: "Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856." In the digital collection Making of America Books. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/ahj4053.0012.001. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections. Accessed June 8, 2025.

Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856.

Annotations Tools

Actions

About this Item

Technical Details

Rights and Permissions

Related Links

IIIF

Cite this Item