4th. It might be thought that we could send our fleet to intercept the enemy or blockade him in his own ports, but this has been found impracticable. Large fleets can readily escape from blockaded harbors, or elude each other on the high seas, and any such scheme implies that we are much stronger on the ocean than the enemy, which is very far from the case. To build a navy that would overmatch that of Great Britain alone would not only cost untold millions, but it would require many years for its accomplishment; and even if this were done, there would be nothing unusual in an alliance of two or more powerful nations, which would leave us again in the minority. _Fleets, then, cannot be relied on for permanent defense_. Again, it may be said that we have millions of the bravest soldiers in the world who could be assembled and placed under arms at a few days' notice. This kind of defense would also prove a delusion, for a hundred acres of soldiers armed with rifles and field artillery would be powerless to drive away even the smallest ironclad or stop a single projectile from one. In fact, neither of these plans, nor both together, would be much more effective than the windmills and proclamations which Irving humorously describes as the means adopted by the early Dutch governors of New York to defend that city against the Swedes and Yankees. Having considered some of the means of defense that will _not_ answer the purpose, we may inquire what means _will be_ effective. And here it should be noted that our defenses should be so effective as not only to be reasonably safe, but to be so recognized by all nations, and thus discourage, if not actually prevent, an attack upon our coast.