University of Virginia Library

PROCEEDINGS IN CONGRESS, 1808.

On the 24th of November, 1808, Mr. Randolph moved that the injunction of
secresy imposed on so much of the President's message of the 9th instant, as
relates to the substance of the communication of our Minister at London and
Paris be removed—but it failed, 39 to 87.

That injunction of secresy had been imposed since December, 1807, when
the embargo message was sent to the House, and it was thought premature
to remove it. His great speech of the session was delivered on the 20th
of November, against the Report of the Committee of Foreign Relations, which
closed with a resolution, "That the House cannot, without a sacrifice of their
rights, independence and honor, submit to the late edicts of Great Britain and
France." The Committee recommended a non-intercourse with both nations.
He began by saying, that one-fourth part of the session had elapsed, and the
House were merely debating an abstract proposition, which, whether rejected or
adopted, was perfectly nugatory, and could not become the basis of any measure.
They were merely making speeches for the amusement of the gallery, the people
of Washington and the vicinity. He inquired, on whom the declaration contained
in the first resolution was to operate? Was it upon the House themselves?
Had their conduct been such heretofore, or was it such now, as to render it necessary
for them to swallow the dose for their own good? Was it for the people to
rouse their courage to the sticking point? or was it for the belligerents of Europe,
to be sent to Gen. Armstrong and Mr. Pinckney, to be administered to France
and Great Britain for the purpose of convincing them of our resolution and prowess?
He thought it too late to produce such an effect upon them by such means.
He regretted the introduction of this Report, as it goes to establish the belief which
has been too long entertained, that words are all the means to be used for vindicating
our rights. To make an impression upon Europe, something more substantial
must be resorted to. This mode of defence by words has been too long
resorted to. He would not follow the example of gentlemen, by recounting
in detail the wrongs we had received and submitted to, from the great belligerents
and the little belligerents. He had no stomach for such repasts. It was no pleasure
to him to be repeating, like Shylock, "On such a day you called me dog,
on such another day, you spat upon my gaberdine." He had no pleasure in
reading the reports of committees, however finely they may be dressed in argument.
He wished the aggressors had more of the argument, and we less of the
injury. As long as we would quietly submit to the insult and the injury, they
would consent to let us have the best of the argument. He felt deep mortification
and humiliation in this perpetual theme of wrongs and insults, and our
only means of repelling them, words, words, words, correspondences of ministers
abroad, and reports of committees at home. In this whole Report there was
not one word of substance, all was prologue, episode and epilogue. Still he did
not mean to find fault with the particular Report. It was pretty much after the
fashion of the times—the old dose which had been so often served up, but not of
quite so exquisite cookery as he had seen before. It might, perhaps, be answered,
that the resolution was nothing by itself, yet when taken in connection with
others, it had a meaning. He asserted that it had none, or it had more than
meets the eye or ear. If it has any meaning, it is a declaration of war. The
resolutions, taken together, are inconsistent with each other. In one breath it is
asserted that we cannot, without a sacrifice of national honor and independence,
submit to these edicts; in the next we declare that we will submit. It would be

objected, that a temporary suspension of commerce is not submission. But the
suspension is not temporary; there is not a word in the statute book which
limits the duration of this suspension. If an unlimited suspension of commerce,
in compliance with the order of foreign governments, be not submission, he knew
not in what submission consists. He said he had not the assurance to pronounce
upon that floor, that the embargo was a measure of resistance, when the Government
had officially declared to the governments of Europe, that it was no such
thing, but merely an internal regulation. If not resistance, it must be submission.
He then examined the statements of those who undertook to show that the
pressure of the embargo was greater in the eastern than in the southern States.
He compared the distress occasioned by the embargo, with that produced by the
excise law, when the father of his country was obliged to raise his arm to chastise
his undutiful children, and concluded that the former was much more severe
than the latter ever was, and consequently that the virtue and patriotism of the
country were much greater now than at that period. He next took a view of the
origin of the present Constitution, and proved that it had its rise in a disposition
to have some general provision for the protection of commerce—that under
it, commerce rose and flourished beyond anything that had been anticipated—
and now, to the astonishment of everybody, without any warning, the navigating
section of the Union, and that section of the Union which produces most of
the articles of exportation, have united in destroying both. He then adverted
to the third resolution, to make immediate provision for the defence of the country,
and asked what was the plan of defence? He asked, whether a man who
felt himself insulted beyond all power of forbearance, usually resolved upon
providing more effectually for his defence by adding another bolt to the street door,
another nail to the embargo? * * * We have offered to take off the embargo
with respect to each, and both have refused to revoke their edicts. Our present
situation, said he, reminds me of the story of Jack in the "Tale of a Tub."
"We have hanged ourselves for spite, in hopes they would cut us down. But
to our utter disappointment, they preferred to let us dangle in our garters."

Mr. Randolph spoke again on the same subject on the 8th of December, and
made such an impression on the House, that one of the majority thought they
ought to take further time for deliberation. On the 16th, the question was taken
on the resolution and carried, ayes 113, noes 2!!

On all private claims, or where his judgment was not warped by party-spirit,
he voted without fear, favor or affection. At the Session of 1807, Philip B.
Key's seat was contested by Patrick Magruder, on the ground of non-residence
within the district, he residing in Georgetown. On a visit to Mr. Key on
horseback, in company with his friend Garnett, in February, upon dismounting
at the door, the ground being slippery with ice and snow, he trod upon an
uneven surface, and fell heavily, wrenching his hip so badly that he could not
walk. He was taken up in great pain, and carried into the house and put on a
bed, which he was not able to leave for a month, when he returned to his
lodgings. The pain was so great that it deprived him of sleep for three
nights, during which time Mr. Garnett lay in the room with him, and was kept

awake the whole time by the groanings of his friend, and his mental anxiety
on his account. But what was a remarkable circumstance, Mr. Garnett
observed he felt no inconvenience from the want of sleep, but arose every
morning as fresh as if he had slept the whole night. Mr. Randolph received
every attention, and the most delicate care from the lady, and the other female
members of the family, during the whole time of his confinement there. Mr.
Key's hospitalities had been conspicuous, in the shape of dinner and supper
parties given to the members, some of whom were by these arts, either neutralized,
or reconciled to vote in favor of Mr. Key. When the question came
up, on the report of the committee of elections, in favor of the sitting member,
Mr. Randolph arose in his place and made a speech against it, or the right of
Mr. Key to a seat in that House. In his introductory remarks, he expressed
his many obligations to Mr. Key for the kind attention and hospitality shown
him on the occasion, but he must vote from the convictions of his unbiassed
judgment. The report of the committee, however, in favor of Mr. Key was
agreed to and he kept his seat.