Equally great was the fear of entanglements with foreign nations, and particularly war with England because of a violation of the treaty, an objection which, perhaps, weighed most heavily in defeating the bill. Nor was this objection ungrounded considering the newness of the nation and the necessity of a period of peace for knitting together the internal fibres of strength. For this there was, of course, no demonstration, nor could it be opposed by proof, and yet there was courage in the answer: ""Arguments founded on what may happen would go equally to prove the futility of establishing a navy which may be captured by an adversary. If a measure is right in itself it is unwise to reject it because its beneficial effects may be defeated by a war."
As might be expected in those days, every question must be tested by its effect upon the Union . The desire to perpetuate the Union, so dearly purchased, has laid at the foundation of many a policy. For its sake many things, desirable in themselves, have been given up or long delayed. That the national government could operate over a territory so vast, and regions so remote, with barriers separating them geographically from other sections, was questionable in the day before railroads and telegraphs. Yet, with a confidence inspired by their belief in the right of their position and in the final adjustment of national affairs to this action, the advocates of the measure argued that it would rather strengthen than weaken the Union: "The danger of separation would be less in a confederacy of twenty or thirty states with diverse interests than in one of smaller number,' because the multiplication of interests would neutralize divisions which grow strong where the number is small.
Lastly, it was held that there was no need for present action, that no request had been made by the business public; it was a question to be settled not by the present
