Norfolk Gazette And Publick Ledger

THE PUBLICK LEDGER

WEDNESDAY EVENING, DEC. 8, 1812.

The Legislature of this State have elected Col. Roscoe B. Tarlton, Brigadier-General for the ninth Brigade in the place of Gen. Thos. Mason, deceased.

The article which immediately follows this, is copied from the National Intelligencer, and deserves attention. If we could consider it as a mere editorial allusion, we should think it unworthy of our notice. But the time, place, and manner, lead us to believe that if it has not been 'issued by authority,' it has the 'countenance of authority.'

The re-election of Mr. Madison being reduced to certainty, and the parasites and panders of power feeling themselves once more firm in the stirrups, all reserve, as they think, has become unnecessary. We are told in pretty plain language, that the measures of our government shall no longer be a subject of censure. Whoever shall dare freely to investigate and expose the measures of men, who (if the fair sense of the nation could have been expressed,) have not its confidence, are to be considered as 'enemies of their country,' according to the court gazette. We wonder what would be said in England, if the ministerial paper was to hold such language as the government paper in this country does? What would become of Cobbett, whose lucubrations adorn the pages of every democratic newspaper in the United States?

It appears according to Mr. Madison's paper, that we went to war in order to obtain peace, and consistently that he and those who support his administration are the real friends of peace, while those who were opposed, and are still opposed to war are the enemies of peace--Well--this may be good logic in the atmosphere of this palace but we trust and believe that when addressed to the sober sense of the nation, will appear neither more nor less than downright nonsense.

The friends of peace.--It is high time that the party which usurp this title should be stripped of their borrowed plumes. We had no conception that they would pretend to claim this distinction after the facts disclosed by the late executive communications to Congress, had become public and notorious. Whilst our administration had recommended war on our part, as a means of obtaining honorable peace --war having been waged by the enemy against us for three antecedent years --the Junto men (observe, readers, we do not say the Federalists--those who feel sensibly to their country's rights and indignation or wrongs) but the Junto men, who had nearly exhausted the billingsgate vocabulary in terms of vituperation against their government for imbecility and want of spirit--these very men immediately become the fast friends of peace. Now that our administration have practically proven their sincerity in declaring war for the purpose of obtaining peace--now that they have proved that they in fact are the 'friends of peace.' why do not the same party, consistent at least in inconsistency, 'cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war?' Not they truly --with them there is a principle of action superior even to their spirit of opposition. It is that which the British government too highly appreciates, when it speaks of its 'friends in Congress.' In a word, it is predilection for Britain.

There is no cover large enough to hide it--as self says an old Spanish proverb, appropriately quoted the other day by a member of Congress--If they be genuine friends of peace, they must become supporters of an administration which has made such unexampled efforts to obtain it if they do not, they must throw off the mask and assume a character more appropriate to their views than that they counterfeit. Let them if they please call themselves 'friends of neutrality' from their own mouths we know they are so, although they dare not answer to that watch-word, because they know in what light those are viewed who declare themselves 'neutral' when their country is at war. The time is coming when these disguises will not avail--now is, when there can be but two parties in relation to the war--the friends and the enemies of their country's independence.

The question of re-conquering is again presented to the American people. Can they hesitate what side to take? Honest and honorable men may differ as to the conduct of the war--(he might even have differed as to its original expediency) not, it seems to us, as to its present necessity. How could war be avoided? How now terminate it? Only by a surrender or rights inseparable from the character of sovereignty--only by a base submission to the terms our enemy might dictate, in the arrogance of her supposed supremacy of naval power besides. The friends of peace, then, who are not the friends of the present administration, are friends to submission and advocates of the lavish doctrines of non-resistance, which were so deservedly odious during the glorious revolution which created this people an independent nation.

It has given us pleasure to find, that no difference of opinion appears to exist amongst American Federalists and Republicans as to the conduct of the British Ministry. If friends...