Page:Confederate Military History - 1899 - Volume 1.djvu/219

Rh 2, pp. 2196, 2221, 1638) to their constituents, signed by thirty-four members, breathing dissatisfaction with the administration. An intended speech of Mr. Samuel Taggart, of Massachusetts, similar in spirit, appeared in the Alexandria Gazette, June 24, 1812, published because the opportunity for open debate had been denied by the secret sessions. The press of the Northeast was full of expressions of dissatisfaction. The most plausible of these complaints related to the lack of preparation for war. It was true that America was not prepared for war. But the war could not be avoided. There was &quot;no retreat but in submission. &quot; The lack of preparation was equally unavoidable. It was inherent in American institutions. Political partisans and theoretical writers might declaim about converting a people from the profound repose of peace into a martial nation by act of Congress, but the idea was impracticable. Napoleon had just furnished an example in the attempt to convert France into a maritime nation by imperial mandate. The result was seen at Trafalgar. The wise men who guided the affairs of the United States knew the difficulties in the way. They had endeavored to avoid war, and they knew that the resources of the nation could not be available until the pressure of invasion was upon the country. They believed that the patriotism of all sections would then be aroused. No other course was possible.

As the war progressed, with alternate defeat and victory, the feeling in New England became more intense, and began in the latter part of 1814 to take an organized and dangerous form. The action of the New England governors with reference to the state militia, the mes sage of the governor of Massachusetts to the legislature, the action of that legislature in summoning delegates from the New England States to meet at Hartford, were looked upon as steps to dissolve the Union. The Federalists were rapidly gaining exclusive control of New