foreign plenipotentiary, according to the modern law of nations, is equivalent to an express declaration of war, and hostilities might be expected to follow as a matter of course.[8] It looks very much as if the annexation was merely laid hold of as a pretext to avoid paying her debts, and making compensation for the wrongs she had perpetrated on our citizens. The closing of diplomatic relations was itself a great outrage, considering the relation in which she stood towards us. There was, certainly, no obligation on our part to take any step towards a renewal of those relations—we might have proceeded according to the usages of nations to take the law on our own hands, and compel her to give, what we might consider, a just indemnity. But unlike other nations, we pursued a humane and moderate course; we attempted again and again, to negotiate, but without success; and perhaps, at the expense of national dignity. And even after the commencement of hostilities, after every success obtained by our army, the olive branch was held forth, and as often rejected. Footnote 8: See _Kent’s Commentaries._—“Since the time of Binkershock, it has been settled by the practice of Europe, that war may lawfully exist by a declaration which is unilateral only, _or without any declaration on either side_.” In the war between England and France in 1778, the first public act on the part of the English government, was recalling its minister, and that single act was considered by France as the breach of the peace between the two countries. There was no other declaration of war, though each government afterwards published a manifesto in vindication of its claim and conduct. The same things may be said of the war which broke out in 1793, and again in 1803. The act of withdrawing a minister, is one of a most decisive character, for _actual hostilities_ may exist without a state of war, as in the war of 1756 between France and England, and between us and France in 1798. The act of taking the fort of Mobile under Mr. Madison’s administration in 1812, was an act of hostility, and yet our diplomatic relations still continued—it was made the subject of complaint by Spain, and defended or excused by our government. If diplomatic relations had been discontinued, there would have been no redress for Spain, but in returning the blow. Hence, I contend, that the party which closes these relations, and prevents the peaceful adjustment of injuries, is responsible for all the consequences.