But arm'd in virtue, firm and true, Peace and Safety we shall find. [Charles] Dibdin, A Collection of Songs (Philadelphia, 1799), 313-314. 21. America to Lead in a Revision of the Laws of Nations (1799) By JOEL BARLOW A literary man and diplomat. An early suggestion of some sort of international code. No one will deny that a great change is taking place in the state of society in Europe, both as to the interior government of nations, and their exterior and reciprocal intercourse. The rapid progress of thought, set loose from the shackles. of precedent, and following the career of revolution that now shakes the political world, must necessarily lead to a new order of things. We all agree likewise, at least all who reflect, that the Law of Nations is exceedingly vitious and unreasonable in many respects; especially in what concerns the rights of war and peace relative to commerce. It gives too much favour and encouragement to a state of war, and subjects to too many inconveniences and vexations the inhabitants of such countries as choose to remain in peace. No pacific nation can certainly be satisfied with this state of things; as it evidently prefers violence and rapine to the honest pursuits of industry. Some of the Powers of Europe, sensible of these wrongs, have united their efforts with those of the friends of liberty, in attempting, for many years past to change the Law of Nations in this respect; to emancipate neutral commerce from the tyranny of contraband, and screen it from the seizures and vexations incident to the prevailing system. America once joined them in these views, and adopted the ameliorations, as far as possible, in her early treaties in Europe; till her government chose to sacrifice them to a more favorite project, and threw them into the general hecatomb of rights and principles, buried in the British treaty. If these revolutions in Europe should terminate in favour of general interior liberty, which is altogether probable, they must necessarily extend to exterior or commercial liberty. The Law of Nations must undergo a revision; and it must be settled on a general basis of peace and honesty, instead of violence and rapine. It would indeed have been glorious in the United States, who had given the first example to the world of interior and domestic liberty (in which they have now so many imitators) to have been also the first in asserting, defining and maintaining the exterior liberty of trade, and those rules of national intercourse which must finally be resorted to, as the basis of a pacific system. Your geographical situation as relative to Europe, not only called for such a measure, but would have ensured its success. But while we regret that so singular an opportunity of doing so much good has been slighted and thrown away, it becomes us to consider how much of the error is still capable of being retrieved, and what will be the proper moment and the best method of attempting it. What are the measures that America ought to take, to secure her own liberty; establish a permanent and equal independence from every foreign Power; command the respect and gain the confidence of all mankind; and induce the commercial nations to adopt a general plan of pacific intercourse, which will perpetuate itself, and better the condition of society? Joel Barlow, Advice to the Privileged Orders (London, 1792), 31-34 passim. 22. A Demand for Preparedness By FISHER AMES A Massachusetts member of Congress. A renowned writer and strong Federalist. IF France possessed the British navy, those chains would be adamant, which no human force could break. French tyranny, like the great dragon, would have wings, and the remotest regions of the civilized world would be near enough to catch pestilence from his breath. Yet we are • infatuated enough to think America a hidingplace for liberty, where her assassins will not seek her life, or an impregnable fortress that would protect it. On what reasonable foundation do these presumptuous expectations rest? When France is master of both land and sea, will distance preserve us? With eight hundred ships in the department of the Thames, distance would be nothing to Bonaparte. He could transport an army of six thousand men to occupy New York, which could not make one hour's resistance. He could transport them with more expedition and ease than Mr. Jefferson could assemble our standing army of two regiments from the frontiers to oppose them. Yet this standing army, so potent to command the types, the exclamations, and the silly fears of the democrats, though it assisted as a bugbear to make Mr. Jefferson president, would no better protect his house, at Monticello, from a French squadron of horse, than the army of the imperial Virginia formerly defended its assembly from Colonel Tarleton. But our myriads of militia might defy the world in arms. Excellent hopes these! When Austria in vain opposes two hundred thousand veterans to the progress of Bonaparte; when Russia is repelled in the pitched battle of Austerlitz; when Prussia, with its armies complete in numbers and discipline, stands still, not daring to stir, and waiting to acknowledge Bonaparte conqueror; or, to come more plainly to the point, when we see half a million of English volunteers, as formidable and as stiff in buckram as it is in the power of tailors to make uniforms, parading the coasts of Sussex, Essex, and Kent, and yet trusting only to the vigilance of the British navy to hinder the French from crossing the channel; surely, when we see these things, we must be unwilling to reflect, or utterly incapable of reflection, if we can suppose that the array of the militia in the secretary's office would transplant fear from Mr. Jefferson's bosom into Bonaparte's. To say nothing of the improbability of the militia's obeying the call for actual service, or if they should appear promptly and in sufficient |