Virginia Argus

FROM THE AURORA.

Mr. Editor,

I see in the American Citizen of New York, a communication, in which there is some good sense, but mixt with a little want of consideration. But I enclose the article—

'COMMUNICATION.

Nothing is more idle than for a nation to think of obtaining respect, when she has no force to command it. The conduct of the British frigates in annoying the commerce of New York, is just such as may be ever expected in the defenceless condition of the United States. It is not British but human nature.

A few vessels of war which the United States can easily, and must sooner or later furnish, would ensure protection to their trade. They then could say to those inclined to trespass, "Gentlemen, you ought not, but you shall not do so." Until such measures are taken, all complaints are vain, and there can be no remedy.

Mr. Jefferson has said many good things, and none more just than that men "feel power and forget right."

Whatever may be the difference of political sentiments among us, and the animosity which it has occasioned, surely all would unite in supporting the dignity and safety of the nation. He is an unworthy citizen who would sacrifice these for any consideration.

POLITICUS.'

In all that concerns the folly of expecting to obtain respect from British ships of war—or from any nation in similar circumstances, I cheerfully concur. But I totally differ from Politicus as to the supposed efficacy of "a few vessels of war."

I do not believe, sir, that any force less than an equal force with the British navy can secure any nation from British aggression, so long as her interests in the commission of the aggression are greater than her interests in the omission.

It is therefore, if I am correct in this opinion, superfluous to argue about any definite number of ships as competent to check the three ships of war now off New York—as the force we must necessarily have to be effective is to be determined only by the number which the British navy could spare from other stations to support its aggressions.

Arguing therefore upon a mere naval defence, is wholly unnecessary, since the question would involve in the first step the question—Could we sustain the expense of such a force?

I believe, sir, that the expense of such a navy as Great Britain maintains could not be possible in the present state of our population. Its expense exceeds 160 millions of dollars.

The expense of such a navy would amount to a tax of about 2000 dollars a year upon every white male between the age of 16 and 45 in the United States.

Naval equipments must depend in the existing state of the world upon pecuniary funds. "The exaction of such funds as 2000 dollars a year from every individual of the active ages of life requires no other argument."

But there are resources much superior to murder and warfare—though I do not expect those who deplore duelling and the sorrows of the orphans and widows of those killed in duels, to be disposed to approve of my notions. I believe that those who covered their heads in mourning weeds on a late occasion, would exhibit the most extravagant joy, at the murder of 1000 human beings more virtuous, and more estimable, in a naval naumachia.

Now, sir, I am not fond of murder either in the detail of duelling or by wholesale;—I detest that system of war which carries conviction by the murderer's ball or bayonet, or which determines right and wrong, by the greater proportion of human carnage.

My mode of convincing would be more effective and not encumbered by any danger of failure—I would carry my arguments into the pockets of British merchants, and they should become my negotiators.

I would, sir, in short, do as was done by those whose virtue has immortalized them, the founders of our independence and our government—in a word, sir, I would refuse admittance to British ships and British goods until justice should be done us—or I would levy a triple or a quadruple duty upon the goods of that nation or of any other nation that should treat us with such barbarous insult and injustice.

I know, sir, that our executive has not the authority to enforce such a prohibition; and that it rests wholly with congress. I know what the executive can do, has been done, in the way of remonstrance and complaint, and that it remains with congress at its approaching session, to carry into effect, those measures which were brought forward under the expectation that the remonstrances at the court of London would be successful. I see no other resource but a non-importation and non-consumption agreement—or a law by congress which may operate to the same effect.

With regard to the injuries done our seamen—would it not be necessary that some principle of retaliation should be pursued.—If an American citizen, is seized by a British ship, why should not a British subject be put into confinement until the citizen is liberated.

HUDDY.