Shall
objects like these be endangered by the impatience of petty ambition,
the promptings of sectional interest, or the goadings of fanatic hate?
Shall the good of the whole be surrendered to the voracious demands of
the few? Shall class interests control the great policy of our country,
and the voice of reason be drowned in the clamor of causeless
excitement? If so, not otherwise, we may agree with him who would
reconcile us to the evils of war by the promise of "emancipation from
the manufacturers of Manchester and Birmingham"; or leave unanswered the
heresy boldly announced, though by history condemned, that war is the
purifier, blood is the aliment, of free institutions. Sir, it is true
that republics have often been cradled in war, but more often they have
met with a grave in that cradle. Peace is the interest, the policy, the
nature of a popular government. War may bring benefits to a few, but
privation and loss are the lot of the many. An appeal to arms should be
the last resort, and only by national rights or national honor can it be
justified.
To those who have treated this as a case involving the national honor, I
reply that, whenever that question shall justly be raised, I trust an
American Congress will not delay for weeks to discuss the chances, or
estimate the sacrifices, which its maintenance may cost. But, sir,
instead of rights invaded or honor violated, the question before us is,
the expediency of terminating an ancient treaty, which, if it be unwise,
it can not be dishonorable, to continue.
Pages:
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811