The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 1: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session Page: 118
xxiv, 696 p. ; 25 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
118
CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE.
&e common glory of the country, and shared by
JuraI and all km constituents. Now, did it not occur
O the gentleman that the infamy of imposing this
line on the defender of his country, and retaining it
in the treasury for such a length of time, was a
common infamy, and if he claimed for himself and his
constituents a share of the common glory, that they
must be content to take a share of the infamy re-
sulting from retaining this fine? What else did his
colleague tell the House? Why, that the action of
tile House on this bill was a Waste of time; that it
was going back to times, the history of which was
long since forgotten, and for the remission of a fine
imposed thirty years ago.
opponents of the bill mean
to plead the statute of limitation in the face of
he cominands of the American people? To plead
statute of limitations against a great act
? "ati°nal justice and national gratitude? He
trusted they would not do so if they meant to
claim for themselves any portion of the glory ac-
quired by the hero of New Orleans for himself and
his country. Wliit did his colleagues, [Messrs.
Feyton and Dickinson,] the immediate representa-
tives of General Jbckson, tell the House? Whv,
that under the influence of some strong and over-
yuhng motives, they intended to vote for the bill;
while, at the same time, they applauded the judge
who imposed the fine, and condemned the general
^hose measures for the defence of the city placed
St«r ge caused the infliction of that
penalty. Was it not strange that his col-
leagues should speak one way and vote another?
What necessity could be weighing them down?
What imperious principle could be controlling them,
when they spoke one way, and voted another? One
of his honorable colleagues [Mr. Peyton] said that
he would vote for this bill; though, when it was
passed, it would strike down the noblest monument
«f General Jackson's fame; and this he said after
professing to be one of the general's true friends.
ii i.IS friendship—to vote for a measure that
would have such an effect on the fame of that dis-
w? i , man> and yet cal1 himself his friend'
What else did his colleague say? Why, that the
lame of General Jackson was not placed in rightful
w 11 i.No,w' i.n.wllosu hands would he place it'
Would he placc it in the hands of the gentleman from
Massachusetts, [Mr. Adams,] who represented the
genera] as old Belisarius, begging his bread from door
to door? Would he place it in the hands of the other
gentleman who had opposed this bill, and who had
reflected so severely on the conduct which he
thought necessary for the defence of the city placed
under his charge? No; never would the friends of
the old patriot and hero consent to let such men
have the keeping of his fame. One gentleman [Mr.
Stei-hkns] was pleased to tell the House that the
majority were determined to pass this bill, but they
should not do it in ignorance? Why, the ma-
jority of the States of the Union had commanded
this thing to be done; and had they done it
ill ignorance? Had the people of this country
who had almost unanimously expressed their
• wishes in its favor; done so in ignorance? Was
the majority of this House acting in ignorance?
He would ask the gentleman from Georgia
[Mi. Stephens] what will be the condition of
the world when he shall go down to the grave
if all knowledge and wisdom are to perish with him?
1 he gentleman was pleased to ask a question, which
he (Mr. B.) wanted to answer by asking him a
question in return. The gentleman asked why no
application was made to pass this bill until this time?
Now he wanted to ask him if he or his party would
ever have voted for the remission of this fine at any
time. Would he and his party have voted for it,
had it been brought forward ten or twenty years
ago? Would the old Federal party have voted for
it? Would those who, in the time of the last war,
were hesitating to cross a State line, to meet the
enemies of their country, have voted for it? Would
those who were hanging out, over the high cliffs of
the ocean,^ blue lights to guide the enemy into the
harbors of the country to burn our ships and sack
our towns, have voted to pass this bill? Would those
who were in correspondence with a British spy, at the
very time of these achievements of General Jackson
nave voted for it' No, never; for the same victory which
drove the enamy from this country, drove out a
-bntish spy; and the battle which saved a noble
city, and quelled the treason withm its bounds,
a so routed and dispersed a more numerous and
dangerous body of traitors assembled at the Hart-
ford convention. Would they have voted for this
bill. No: and they would not do it now. Instead
of that, they resort to every kind of stratagem and
device to prevent justice being done to the man who
has filled the measure of his country's glory. As
to the objections of the gentleman from New York,
[Mr. Barnard,] that this bill has not been brought
forward at an earlier day, he' asked the attention of
the committee to the gentleman's arguments on the
merits of the question; for he was the only gentle-
man who had attempted to go into them. What
did the gentleman say? Why, he told'the committee,
in the first place, that Gen. Jackson had no constitu
tional right to declare martial law. 1 deny it,(said Mr.
B.;) and declare that, so far as he did declare martial
law, he did it consistently with the Constitution.
New Orleans was the general's headquarters. The
city to be defended was his whole camp. Within
that camp what law must prevail, or ought of ne-
cessity to prevail? Why, martial law. But it pre-
vailed no further than was necessary for the de-
fence of the city. He might here give various il-
lustrations to support his position. For instance:
when it was necessary to defend a mountain pass,
and maintain it from the assaults of an enemy, you
may send your amy to take possession of it; and
though a few shepherds' huts may be there, the gen-
eral is not bound to permit the ingress aud egress
of the inhabitants to carry intelligence to the enemy,
because their constitutional rights may be in the
way; and if the general, in such a case, should
abridge the personal liberty of the citizens, and
override their constitutional rights, it would be
monstrous to suppose that a judge could come with
his civil process, and break up the defence of a bass
upon the maintaining of which the safety of the
country depended. But he would go a little further.
The gentleman from New York, in justification of
the judge, admitted that there was another law, the
great law of necessity, under which martial law could
be declared and justified. He would ask if there
was not a vaviety of cases, both in time of war and
in ordinary life, which justified the use of extraordi-
nary means to effect some good. If he saw the gen-
tleman sinking down into a watery grave, what rio-ht
had he, under the Constitution, to pluck him out "by
the hair, and save him? Not under the Constitu-
tion, but certainly permitted by it. If he put powder
beneath his neighbor's dwelling, and fired it to save
other houses in its vicinity from being burnt to the
ground, what right, under the Constitution, had he
to do it'
But if the devouring element of fire raged, and it
was necessary to destroy particular property to save
a whole city from destruction, though it might not
be done by virtue of the Constitution, yet it could
be consistently witli the Constitution, and the act
would never be complained of. But, as he intended
to be brief m his argument, he must pass on to the
discovery of the gentlemen from New York, [Mr
Barnard.] And what was it? It was the amazing
discovery, made after the lapse of thirty years that
New Orleans was not invaded: and that the decla-
ration of martial law was entirely unnecessary; that
notwithstanding the averments of history, New Or-
leans in reality never was invaded. And how did he
make out this extraordinary position? Why he
gravely told them that the enemy never did enter
with the lines of the corporation. And why did they
not enter within the lines? It was because General
Jackson met them on the lines. It was because
General Jackson not only met them on the lines but
conquered and overcame them; and thus it was'that
New Orleans was never invaded according to the
criticism of the gentleman from New York, [Mr
Bak.vai!e.] But permit him to ask, if that enemy
had entered Within the lines of New Orleans and into
the city itself, if all would not have lost? The Brit-
ish fires would have been seen blazing from every
steeple; the British cannon would have been heard
battering down e\ery public and private edifice; the
screams of American wives and daughters, in the
power and grasp of a licentious British soldiery,
would have been heard from every habitation. I
repeat, he said emphatically, that every thing would
have been lost; our heroic general and officers mi°-ht
have been slain; our army conquered; the city sack-
ed and burnt; and the West—the then youno- but
growing West, the now mighty West—woull'have
been l<,st. Sir, 1 ISve that West. It was the home
ot my youth; it is still the home of my mature life,
I love her lofty mountains; I love her wide and luxu-
riant valleys; I love her hardy, brave, and enter-
prising people; and need I tell you and this com-
mittee that I love and honor and cherish in my
heart of hearts that immortal man that saved them
all from capture? But the British army never en-
tered New Orleans! And, astonishing as it may be,
that is to be used as an argument why this fine
should not be refunded!
He then proceeded to say that he had listened to
the gentleman who had last addressed the House,
anxious to know on what ground he objected to re-
funding this fine; and that gentleman's argument
was, that it was necssary to preserve the purity
and independence of the judieiary. But was that
involved in the fate of this bill? What were they
doing? They were suffering the judgment to stand
against General Jackson; and by the passage of
this bill, they were passing no reflection on Judge
Hall. They were about simply to remit the fine,
which was imposed under circumstances which
this nation never did and never will sanction.
Would, then, the passage of this bill and the rever-
sal of this judgment be a reflection on Judge Hall?
Not in the slightest degree. It would not affect any
one in New Orleans; it would take nothing from
the treasury of that city; for it would take the
money to refund to General Jackson the fine which
he paid, from the treasury of the country; and he
must be permitted to say that, with his views on
this subject, he could never hope for lasting and
permanent prosperity to this country so long as
that money was kept in its treasury. He desired,
then, to take this ill-gotten money from the nation-
al treasury and surrender it to General Jackson;
and who was there on this floor that would refuse
to do that? No right-minded, no right-hearted,
man, in his humble judgment, would refuse to
surrender it. It was too enormous a fine; and
he should like to see the man on this floor that
would refuse to give it back. Did they believe that
General Jackson had no right to declare martial law?
Did they believe that he declared martial law from
any other than patriotic motives? No, certainly;
for he did not believe there was a man on that floor
that would accord to General Jackson any other than
the highest, the noblest, the most patriotic motive in
what he did towards the defence of New Orleans;
and, therefore, no one could consistently refuse to
refund the money. Had gentlemen turned their at-
tention to General Jackson's own exposition of his
views and position in declaring martial law? They
were to be found in his defence; and it was a noble
defence. On that occasion, he appealed to heaven,
and made the solemn averment that, in declaring
martial law, he was influenced by no desire but to
save the city, and serve his country. And if these
were his motives, (and no man, he thought, would
question them,) why should a fine of one thousand
dollars have been imposed upon him' A nominal
fine would have been sufficient for every purpose.
Why, in the judgment of the gentleman from Ohio,
[Mr. Schenck,] and according to the argument of
the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Barn'ard,] and
of every gentleman who had opposed this bill, a
nominal fine would have answered every purpose on
that occasion; fifty dollars or one hundred dollars
would have answered as well as one thousand dol-
lars. He (Mr. B.) insisted that the fine was enor-
mous; and on that point, he repeated,every gentleman
on that floor, even those that opposed the bill, con-
curred with him; and hence he claimed its return to
General Jackson. They were disputing about the
fine imposed on the victorious general of the battle
ofNew Oi leans,of one thousand dollars. Butsuppose
that Gen. Jackson had been thrown in a dungeon for
three months instead of being subjected to a fiiJe: sup-
pose the mail which brought the news of the victory
of New Orleans had also brought information that the
victorious general had been thrown into the dun-
geons of Louisiana: if, when the victorious army
returned from the defences of Louisiana, the gene-
ral had been thus detained behind, how lono- did
they suppose Mr. Madison, the then Resident of
the United States, would have allowed him to re-
main there? Why, the very moment the news or-
lived at the capital that their heroic general, who
had won so much renown for himself and for the
nation, was m bondage, the Congress, then in ses-
sion, would have adjourned, and gone in solemn
procession to the house of the President, and asked
the liberation of that illustrious man. Would the
gentleman from Kentucky have hung back and lin-
gered, and said, No, a part of the fame of Gen. Jack-
son Kfmy fameand of my people's fame; and he shall
not be turned out, lest it tarnish that fame? And
would the gentleman from the Hermitage district, if
he had been here at that time, have said, I will '°-o
and ask for the liberation of General Jackson, for^it
will strike down the noblest monument of his fame?
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Congress. The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 1: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session, book, 1844; Washington D.C.. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth2367/m1/142/: accessed April 19, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.