other cases, the power to do wrong too frequently gives the disposition. While she guards her own immunities with ceaseless vigilance, she is inclined to make such gradual encroachments on the rights of others as threaten, if unresisted, to vest all rights in herself.
What course is it policy to hold with such a nation? Is it wise to resist aggressions? to redress injuries? to resent insult? to assert and maintain national character and national rights? or is is wise to trim and accommodate, to bend to time and circumstance with the best grace we can? to turn the unsmitten cheek, and surrender important rights to the disposal of others?
These sentiments of the heart decide these questions without any appeal to the understanding, and the understanding, unsolicited, confirms the decision of the heart. Whether we consult character or expediency, spirit or policy, the answer is the same, Defend yourselves! If we submit to first aggressions, how far is forbearance to extend, and at what point is resistance to begin? Shall we be servile to-day, and fix on to-morrow or the next day as the proper time for honorable resentment? Do we shake poppies on all our senses now, with an expectation of waking from our stupor hereafter with more acute sensibilities? A high wrought affectation of resentment, a petulant propensity to go at fisty-cuffs for every trifle, are the definitions of false honor. A firm adherence to right, which leads to a cool, though unconquerable, determination to defend them at every hazard, is true dignity. Without this, we cannot long have peace, nor good government. A philosophical endurance of repeated injuries, is the greatest of all maladies that can befall a government. It is even worse than occasional precipitation.
Fever is not so dreadful as consumption. Depletion and regimen may cure the former, but when the latter appears, it writes death upon the countenance. Nations generally hold the same grade in the estimation of others which they hold in their own. While they do not respect themselves, it is in vain that they solicit respect from rivals.
Nothing seems plainer than this! If we will have commerce we must protect it. So long as we are rich and defenceless, rapacity will prey upon us. The government ought either to defend the merchant, or to repeal the laws which restrain him from defending himself. It ought to afford him the assistance of armed vessels, or to suffer him to arm his own vessel. It ought not to bind him hand and foot, and surrender him to the mercy of his enemy.
On this subject of the protection of commerce much has been said, and many opinions entertained. There is a system which is opposed to every degree of naval preparation. There are men who would not defend commerce an inch beyond the land. They choose to consider the United States as exclusively agricultural, as a great land animal, whose walks are confined to his native forests, and who has nothing to do with the ocean, but to drink at its shores, or sooth its slumbers by the noise of its waves.[1] This system may have some bright parts, but, as a whole, it is impracticable and absurd. Like the sun in eclipse, a few rays of brilliant luster may decorate its outer edges, but the great body of light is intercepted.
This country is commercial as well as agricultural. Indissoluble bonds connect him who ploughs the land with him who ploughs the ocean. Nature hath placed us in a situation favorable to commercial pursuits, and no government can alter the destination. Habits confirmed by two centuries are not to be changed. An immense portion of our property is on the waves. Sixty or eighty thousand of our most useful citizens are there, and are entitled to such protection from the government as their case requires.
Is it said, We ought never to have differences with other nations which may render measures of protection necessary? This is as wise as to say that blasts
- ↑ Mr. Randolph.
