WRITINGS OF SAM HOUSTON, 1826
50
therefore, was perfectly safe. But, Mr. Chairman, how do these pretexts and excuses comport with the character of an American Governor of a free and independent State? The Governor ·of Nova Scotia, forsoothk, had promised that his State should not be invaded! What! Submit to the dictum of a national enemy! Leave his territory unguarded, merely because a British Governor had said, by proclamation, that they would not be invaded! He reposes implicit faith in the proclamation of a Governor whose _government is at, war with the United States, while he doubts the motives of the Executive of the Union, and denies the power of the President to call out the militia of the States. The two nations were at war with each other: orders had been issued by the President to the Governor of that State, to have in readi- ness his quota of men for the service. The object of detaching the militia, was to give them discipline, prepare them for action when emergency might require it, but with no disposition, on the part of the President, to march them from their homes until that emergency should arise. No disposition was indicated to march them to any point beyond the confines of their own State, nor to deprive them of the presence of the officers who had been ap- pointed to command them according to the regulations of their own State. No, Sir, the requisition was, therefore, not resisted on principle; the Governor does not pretend to place it exclusively on that ground: he resisted it on the ground of expediency also. From his proclamation, it appears it he believed the enemy, un- less provoked, would leave Massachusetts free from depredation. The show of resistance would have a tendency to provoke hostili- ties from the enemy. Is this a good ground for a claim to re- muneration? The enemy were not to be provoked ! But the United States are now called upon to pay the militia of Massa- chusetts for their valiant services in the late war. Valiant they must have been, but more politic than valiant, when their great concern was not to provoke the enemy. But it is said that Massachusetts asks no more than has already been granted to other states. And, Sir, is there no difference in the cases? The claims of the other States resulted from their harmonious co-operation with the General Government in the common defence of the Union. But, in the case of Massachusetts, her own Governor, in his address to the Legislature, of 1823, ad- mits the fact of consistent opposition, and disloyal conduct, on the part of the functionaries of that State, throughout the late war.
I I I
1
_ II
Powered by FlippingBook