for the
Dialectic
Society, June 22, 18361
Mr. President
& its
Fabius
.6
The
Gentleman (Mr Avery)
objects to the elevation of a military character,
to the first offices of state, through fear of a "military despotism" and has adduced several
instances to sanction it. Those of
Caesar—
Bonaparte &c.—To listen to his eloquent
description of their cruelty & tyranny,—their oppression of their
subjects—& the prostration of Liberty; we
are unavoidably led into his conclusion.—and see with shrinking
hearts—the imminent risque—the appalling danger- we incur- in
hazarding our liberties upon so delicate a tenure—But sir, listen not to
the deceptive voice of eloquence. Let us for a moment trace effects to their
generating causes—and see how one could thus subvert the liberties of his
country. Examine the history of every age- & you will find the cause to be
in the state of the people
themselves. It is when a nation becomes a prey to
corruption—when it is torn by civil dissentions—when the sacred
office of government is prostituted to venal purposes—it is sir, when the
temple of Liberty is beginning to totter,—that
the bloody standard of the usurper can be planted
over its ruins. And not till then. The independance of
Rome was virtually
lost- before
Caesar
became its usurper—Their assemblies were the shambles of offices secured
by bribery;—the property & honour of the citizens were vio[l]ated;7 —its
masters were as numerous as its different
factions; and the small thread which bound together
the multifarious states of the Republic—so seperate in their
interests—seemed ready to burst. The occassion seemed imperiously to
demand some master-spirit, to quiet the jarring elements—and unite them
into one body. Let us now examine the position of the gentleman, with respect
to the
French
Revolution, & the efferts of those patriots which "would have
been crowned with success but for the usurpation of
Napoleon
Bonaparte
". That the French people ardently
desired Liberty—is what I do not intend to
deny: but that they in their then-existing state
of affairs were incapable of self-government- I will endeavor to show. Groaning
under a state of oppression in which they had long laboured; by the bloody
execution of their king, the French nation emerged into a state of comparative
anarchy. Fired by a spirit, hitherto unknown to them, and rendered enthusiastic
by the happy termination of our struggles, & their own unrestrained
condition, through a mistaken notion of liberty, they gave themselves up to the
most extravagant excesses—Like a lion just burst from his prison—it
vents its rage upon every supposed foe:—the adherents of the unfortunate
king, were
inhumanly persecuted—& all those who appeared inimical to their
designs were sacrificed to their fury. Par[t]y-rage8 & discord
were now become the rulers of the Republic. From them, sprung
Robespeare—Danton &
Murat
[Jean Paul
Marat?], who deluged it in blood. A corruption that has become
proverbial, universally prevailed. The fanaticism,
which characterized the regiscides, spread like wild-fire, from the
Loire to the
Rhine;—the divine institution of the sabbath was
abolished;—and devotion publickly ordained to be paid to
Liberty—the creature of their own extravagant
madness. The deleterious effects of such a state of things, so inimical to the
peace & liberty, not only of themselves, but of the world, began
universally to be felt; & called for that coalition against them which
finally succeeded in restoring peace & harmony. This is what the gentleman
is pleased to call "liberty";—Liberty! Observe sir, how easy the yoke of
Napoleon was borne. Where was that spirit, which brought
the ill-fated
Louis to the
block.? Why did it not with
Bonaparte? see with what open arms, he was recieved when
escaped from
Elba
—Sir, the French nation, has
never experienced the sweets of
liberty. In the same manner
Oliver
Cromwell reared himself upon the religious faction & fanaticism of
his age:—a fanatacism which absorbed every principle of liberty. Thus we
see sir, that for a nation to be subjugated by an usurper, it must have
previously lost its liberty
freedom. For as long as the pure spirit of
liberty, breathes throughout a country—the corrupt & heavy vapour of
tyranny will sink beneath its refined atmosphere,
Sir, the gentleman has inveighed with much severity against the [l]icentiousness10 of the camp;—which he identifies with a sink of corruption—& school of vice. Such anathemas might well suit the undisciplined & profligate mercinaries of the despot;—but will by no means apply to the soldiery of our Republic. What sir, was the charac[t]eristic11 feature, that distinguished our Patriotic citizens, from the hirelings of King George? What was it sir, that enabled a few half-starved militia, to triumph over the well-fed regulars of a powerful monarch? It was their strict discipline;—that rigour, with which martial law was carried into execution, & that circumspection of our officers, ever acts as a preventative against licentious conduct. The prudent policy of our republic, will not support, a commander of loose principles himself, or who tolerates them in the camp. Entrusted with the care of our liberties,—his selection, is the result of a cool & calculating inquiry;12 —& his movements watched by an anxious & jealous people. & here sir, I would remark the duty incumbent upon the people to endue with the highest gifts in their power, the man from whom they recieved signal military services. It is a debt which they owe to him, & if not canceled, will ever remain a monument of their ingratitude. It is in vain sir, to attempt to extenuate13 the claims of him, who generously offers his own life a sacrifice to the interests of his country; & who perhaps has spilt his blood in her cause;—to its most ample remuneration. It was the ardent love of his native soil—that called forth the noble sacrifice, and the zealous devotion of the patriot, which makes its security—the Palladium of his heart. And it is too often the case, that private aggrandizement is the ruling principle—which moulds the character of the statesman, and gives direction to his talents. And we have no surety, that his promotion will engender sentiments incongruous with the uniform tenor of his life. If the protector of his country is denied the participation in its civil affairs,—what recompense shall he recieve for his services? Shall those heroic deeds, which have won for it the blessings of liberty, and emblazoned its historic page,—be recompensed by the mere paltry expressions of gratitude & respect? Or still less; shall they be acknowledged by that ill-devised expedient—of increasing his labors, by promotion in his arduous occupation?. Instead of rewarding him for services already performed—to make the obligation, more binding by imposing new duties upon him. Mr President, shall the supporter of his country's indepence,—after the perilous conflict of battle is over,—covered with wounds—the price of its freedom—be requited by the unsolid recompense,- of posthumous fame? shall a marble column, be raised over his grave—as if to illicit from more generous posterity,—that tribute of patriotism to him,—when dead,—which they refused him—when living? Is this the recompense of toil & suffering? Is it, the recompense of pa[t]riotism 14? Forbid it gratitude!! Forbid it justice!! Then let our glorious Republic, never permit its military spirit, to languish. through want of patronage;—but cherish it—as the keystone of the mighty fabric, upon which—all our hopes—all our fortunes—are concentred. Should this decay we then should bid to liberty & independence—a long—an eternal—adieu"Unless corruption first deject the prideThompsons Liberty 9
And guardian vigor of the free-born soul
All crude attempts of violence are vain
Too firm—within—& while at heart untouched
Ne'er yet by force was Freedom overcame"
, wrote at the top of the page "Dialectic Hall.
June 23 1836." Because the debates were "ordered filed" in the
Society's archives, June 23, 1836, may represent the date on which
Taylor
turned in his speech.
Dialectic
Society minutes make clear that the debate itself was held on June 22,
1836.
wrote —itself incapable either of affording—
on top of several erased, unrecovered characters.
wrote chieflain.
wrote ils.
(c. 268-208 BCE) conquered
Syracuse in 211 BCE and plundered the city, bringing
thousands of sculptures and other works of art to
Rome and
transforming the city into an attractive, cosmopolitan center. Roman elders
criticized
Marcellus
because the decorated temples became tourist
attractions, tempting the people to want additional luxuries and to waste the
day in small talk about art. Two years later, when
Fabius Maximus Verrucosus
(d. 203 BCE) sacked the Italian
town of
Tarentum, he took 30,000 captives and thousands of pounds of
gold and silver, but he left statues and art behind, earning the respect of
conservative Romans.
wrote viotated.
wrote Parly-rage.
wrote ticentiousness.
wrote characleristic.
wrote inquiry on top of several
unrecovered characters.
wrote extenuate on top of
several unrecovered characters.
wrote palriotism.
" appears parallel to the right margin
of the page and perpendicular to the rest of the text. Taylor ends in a flourish.