Download PDF The best science fiction of the year volume 7 8th edition neil clarke full chapter pdf
Volume 7 8th Edition Neil Clarke
Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://textbookfull.com/product/the-best-science-fiction-of-the-year-volume-7-8th-editi on-neil-clarke/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant download maybe you interests ...
The Best American Science Fiction and Fantasy 2018 1st Edition N.K. Jemisin
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owners.
Published as an eBook in 2023 by JABberwocky Literary Agency, Inc.
eBook ISBN: 978-1-625676-91-7
JABberwocky Literary Agency, Inc.
49 W. 45th Street, Suite #5N
New York, NY 10036
awfulagent.com
ebooks@awfulagent.com
Trade Paperback and Hardcover editions of this book were published by Night Shade Books.
Trade Paperback ISBN: 978-1-949102-69-7
Hardcover ISBN: 978-1-949102-71-0
Table of Contents
Introduction: A State of the Short SF Field in 2021 by Neil Clarke
“Muallim” by Ray Nayler
“Dark Waters Still Flow” by Alice Towey
“Proof by Induction” by José Pablo Iriarte
“Integral Nothings” by Robert Reed
“The Price of Attention” by Karl Schroeder
“Paley’s Watch” by Anil Menon
“Among the Marithei” by Mary Anne Mohanraj
“A Different Sea” by Vandana Singh
“The Pizza Boy” by Meg Elison
“Ice Fishing on Europa” by Erin Barbeau
“Vaccine Season” by Hannu Rajaniemi
“Where There are Cities, These Dissolve Too” by S. Qiouyi Lu
“Without Lungs or Limbs to Stay” by Shauna O’Meara
“I’m Waiting for You” by Kim Bo-Young
“Philia, Eros, Storge, Agápe, Pragma” by R.S.A. Garcia
“Hānai” by Gregory Norman Bossert
“The Equations of the Dead” by An Owomoyela
“A Necessary Being” by Indrapramit Das
“Qiankun and Alex” by Hao Jingfang
“The Trolley Solution” by Shiv Ramdas
“Aptitude” by Cooper Shrivastava
“The Tide of Moon City” by Regina Kanyu Wang
“A Rocket for Dimitrios” by Ray Nayler
“Jaunt” by Ken Liu
“The Streams Are Paved With Fish Traps” by Octavia Cade
“The Water Beneath Our Feet” by Alice Towey
“Elegba’s Valley” by Tade Thompson
“He Leaps for the Stars, He Leaps for the Stars” by Grace Chan
“Complete Exhaustion of the Organism” by Rich Larson
“Mulberry and Owl” by Aliette de Bodard
“Bots of the Lost Ark” by Suzanne Palmer
Permissions
Acknowledgments
2021 Recommended Reading List
About the Editor
INTRODUCTION: A State of the Short SF Field in 2021
Neil Clarke
When starting my work on this year’s summary, the first thing I did was to review the notes and data from the annual survey that I send magazine editors. Evaluating the stories throughout the year, it’s easy to get swept up in the reading. Reconnecting with the editors, their observations, and the data they’ve provided is a good way to pull back and start seeing the bigger picture.
The survey contains sections on quantitative publishing information (number of issues, stories, story lengths, readership, etc.); relevant market news (business/operational changes); and an open-ended section about works/authors they enjoyed or any other issues they considered relevant to the business of short fiction. This is the second year I’ve included their notes in my research and I look forward to seeing what multi-year trends the data reveals in the future.
This year’s survey was sent to eighty different English-language science fiction magazines. That’s up from the fifty-four I sent the prior year, a difference largely made up by new publications and outreach to magazines located outside the US. Of the eighty different magazines, fifty-five directly participated in this year’s survey. I was able to manually fill in missing responses from fifteen other publications by examining awards eligibility lists, my own reading lists, and public statements made by editors throughout the year.
The seventy markets represented by the 2021 data set range from its longest-running publications to some of the newest; large
readerships to small; and general interest to more focused niches. The majority publish a mix of both fantasy and science fiction, but more specialized markets are also well-represented. Response rates from publications outside the US and Canada were much improved over last year. Eight different countries are represented, though USbased publications still represent a very significant percentage.
I don’t keep track of the total number of stories I read throughout the year, so it was somewhat frightening to total up our respondent’s publication data and discover that they published over 2,300 stories in 2021, the majority (1,600) of which were short stories. This doesn’t even include the missing ten magazines, over thirty-five anthologies, twenty-plus collections, and many miscellaneous standalone works considered for this anthology. Anyone that suggests that short fiction is dead or dying is simply covering their eyes and plugging their ears.
The impact of the pandemic continues to be felt in the industry, primarily in traditional print publishing. The temporary bookstore closures triggered by lockdown measures were not replicated this year, but the actual production of books has not fully recovered. Supply chain problems continued to plague the printing industry, driving paper prices on a steady path upward and frequently disrupting book production schedules. Unlike 2020, however, the print editions of the major magazines of the field were largely unaffected—most arriving on-time or with minor delays.
Print editions were reported or observed from the following magazines: Analog,Asimov’s,Clarkesworld,CossmassInfinities, DarkMatter,Dreamforge,FusionFragment,Galaxy’sEdge,Infinite Worlds,LadyChurchill’sRosebudWristlet,TheMagazineofFantasy andScienceFiction,Metaphorosis,Interzone,OnSpec,Planet Scumm,Pulphouse,Reckoning,ShorelineofInfinity, and Spaceand Time.The venues with the largest number (by far) of print subscribers—Analog,Asimov’s,and F&SF—are produced in single, offset-printed runs that have traditional newsstand distribution. The remaining majority are printed-on-demand (POD), with distribution via direct purchase or through various online booksellers. They typically have sales significantly below a thousand per issue in that
format. After years of heading toward this point, 2021 was the first time that print subscriptions at all magazines were lower than digital subscriptions.
Survey participants noted a return to stability for story submissions to magazines with fewer of the monthly swings that were present in 2020, though a few of the smaller publications noted sustained increases in volume. The influx of new writers observed in 2020 continued into the year, but was not as pronounced. Established writers frequently noted that their 2021 output was still lower than pre-pandemic times and the submissions data from Clarkesworldappear to back that up. All of these trends were reported as moving in a more positive direction toward the end of the year, providing some hope that things are returning to normal on this front.
When it came to solicited fiction—stories directly requested by publishers—there was a slight increase in the total number of reported and observed instances at magazines. This was in spite of a significant decrease in published works (from 46 to 30) by Tor.com. Some of that can be attributed to the greater sample size of this year’s survey. The majority of those contributing to the increase were new publications still in their first year and employing the practice to establish the type and style of stories they will seek from open submissions in the future. The markets with the highest volume of solicited works were Tor.com,FutureTenseFiction, and Uncanny.
While the practice of solicitation does maintain a perception of favoritism—particularly among newer authors—it often has valid reasons for existing. Aside from the aforementioned new magazines, it’s a common practice to have “anchor” authors that can be used in marketing an anthology or Kickstarter campaigns. While there is some debate over the extent to which this is necessary, particularly once an editor or magazine is well-established within the community, it has been a common practice within the field for some time and is unlikely to change.
In the last few volumes, I’ve noted that more English-language genre magazines have become increasingly open to publishing
translated fiction. The trend continued in 2021 and survey data demonstrated a slight increase in the number of magazines publishing one (most common) or more translations. In 2021, they could be found at: Abyss&Apex,Clarkesworld,Constelación,Daily ScienceFiction,DarkMatter,FutureScienceFiction,Galaxy’sEdge, Lightspeed,LunaStationQuarterly,MermaidsMonthly,Samovar,Sci PhiJournal,ShorelineofInfinity,StrangeHorizons,and Tor.com. Works were most commonly translated from Chinese, Russian, and Spanish, but several other languages were represented as well.
The Business Side ofThings
When it comes to magazines, matters can be complicated by the lack of modern, industry-standard terminology to demonstrate the significant differences between the venues. Simply referring to them as “online” or “print” magazines ignores that it’s extremely uncommon for today’s publication to be restricted to a single format. For example, Asimov’s(which started as a print digest) sells more digital copies than print and makes some of its content available in both online and audio podcast formats. Clarkesworld(which started as an online magazine) has long since expanded to print, podcast, and other digital editions.
Even our awards and professional organizations have a difficult time separating them. The Hugo Awards recognize three weight classes of magazines: fanzine, semiprozine (semiprofessional magazine), and professional. Restricting even further, The World Fantasy Awards split their categories into just “professional” and “non-professional.” Additionally, the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America (SFWA) created their qualifying markets list based on how much they paid authors. In turn, a lot of people conflated “qualifying” with “professional”—wrongly so since SFWA makes no such claim. Spanning all the various definitions, it’s possible for a single magazine—like EscapePodor Uncanny—to be a non-professional, semi-professional, professional.
If you step back, however, this is one characteristic that has had a significant impact on the field in the last couple of decades: whether or not a magazine offers some edition of their publication for free (this typically manifests in the online edition). Among the betterknown publications launched in the last fifteen years, only Fiyah stands as a notable exception to this trend. They eschewed the free edition and adopted a paid-access-only model—sometimes called a “paywall”—that was common among the pre-digital genre publications.
The two most important sources of funding for magazines are subscriptions (print and/or digital) and crowdfunding (Kickstarter or Patreon). Sometimes subscriptions are folded into the crowdfunding campaigns, so drawing a line between the two can be more complicated. While literary grants exist in some parts of the world, it’s extremely unusual for a US-based magazine to receive such funding. Advertising, while common among the glossy trade magazines outside the genre, rarely plays a role worth noting. Back issue sales, merchandising, and other solutions can play lesser roles as well. All magazines, even the non-profits, rely on some form of reader-generated revenue to continue functioning.
The free model tends to be a combination of altruism and marketing, leaning slightly more toward one side or the other based on the goals of the publication. Altruistic goals include making short fiction available to anyone anywhere, much like a public library, the Public Broadcasting System (PBS), or National Public Radio (NPR). Marketing goals can serve the publisher (Tor.com, for example, is funded by Tor Books marketing budget), the publication’s financial needs, visibility for its authors, and more.
While marketing is always important, the free model comes with an understanding that significantly less than ten percent of your readers will support you financially. To survive, these publications require a significantly larger number of readers than their paywalled counterparts. From the outside, the larger readership can make them appear more successful, but in reality, they often fall short with resources. Authors and web hosting costs are typically the priority— SFWA has done an excellent job of reinforcing the “pay your
authors” mindset—but there are few advocates for everyone else behind-the-scenes. Many are unable to pay their publishers, editors, and staff more than a token amount.
There’s no shortage of people willing to work under these conditions, but it doesn’t bode well for the state of the field when it represents a lion’s share of the people involved. It’s also an active economic barrier for people who might otherwise seek these opportunities. In recent years, we’ve seen public outcry and action in regards to providing living wages for a variety of historically low-paid careers, such as those for workers in the fast food industry. It’s time to add the staff at genre magazines to that list. Some would like to call this a new golden age for short fiction, but while these conditions remain, it seems a bit premature.
This is not to say that the paywall publications have it any easier. Yes, publications like Analog,Asimov’s,and F&SFhave full-time staff, but they originated in a different time with very different conditions. They’re certainly the most financially stable, but it’s not a guarantee that things will stay that way. The meteoric rise of free online fiction has increased the number of people reading short fiction, but not significantly changed the number of people willing to pay for content. It may, however, have made this path more difficult for new publications to follow. None have managed to fare any better than their free colleagues.
Let’s take a closer look at some of the numbers behind this.
Over the last five years Analoghas dropped from 12,249 print subscriptions to 8,901, a loss of 3,348; Asimov’shas dropped from 7,627 to 6,106, a loss of 1,521; F&SFhas dropped from 6,935 to 5,112, a loss of 1,823. That may look bad at first glance, but it’s symptomatic of a change in reading habits and largely offset by changes in digital subscriptions. In the same time period, Analoghas risen from 6,029 to 9,233, a gain of 3204; Asimov’shas risen from 8,155 to 10,202, a gain of 2,047. This is the first year that Analog’s digital sales were higher than print and Asimov’scrossed that line in 2017. F&SFdoesn’t share digital subscription data, but it’s probably safe to assume they have experienced a similar trend.
This data demonstrates relative stability in paid readership over the last five years. During that same period—and particularly over the last two years—the cost of printing, shipping, and storing magazines has risen considerably. The fact that subscriptions have been drifting significantly toward digital editions has likely offset some of the damage caused by these cost increases. It does bring to question the long-term financial viability of traditional print subscriptions as their numbers continue to decline. (Lower print runs also means lower discounts on printing.) We should probably expect price increases in the near future.
Let’s then examine the subscription numbers for three of the more successful free-edition magazines. Over the last five years Clarkesworldhas risen from 3,500 digital subscriptions to 4,000, a gain of 500; Lightspeedhas dropped from 2,300 to 2,209, a loss of 91; and Uncannyhas risen from 1,600 to 2,600, a gain of 1,000. Online, they have unpaid readerships that range from 29,000 to 50,000. While that is significantly higher than the three paywalled magazines, the marketing advantage from that audience doesn’t appear to have generated significantly better results. Any growth for these markets is a good thing, but it doesn’t significantly move the needle either.
As I considered this, I was reminded of a period in magazine history that also played with this concept of expanding reach and opportunity through discounted editions. During the ’80s and into the ’90s, Analog, Asimov’s, and F&SFwere among the many magazines that participated in a discount subscription program offered through Publishers’ Clearing House. These programs significantly increased the total readership of the magazines but, unknown to most people outside the industry, those subscriptions were sold at a loss and in hopes that readers would renew at full price. (It didn’t work out that way often enough.)
During the ’90s, these publishers began to phase out or end their involvement in PCH’s program, which triggered an observable drop in the published subscriber information. Casual observers saw this and began to proclaim the death of short fiction, despite the fact—as documented by Gardner Dozois in his Year’s Best Science Fiction
introductions of the time—that eliminating these subscriptions made those magazines more profitable and therefore more likely to stay in business.
It's highly unlikely that this iteration of the discount model—in this case, all the way to free—will end the same way. There are many more publications involved and they represent a broader variety of business models and goals. Furthermore, the model has not been without its benefits this time around and can be considered a significant factor in the growth of the short fiction field over the previous fifteen years. Despite being built on arguably shaky financial models, this approach has rejuvenated the short fiction field, introduced many new voices, and increased opportunities to spotlight work that might have once been relegated to the fringes or entirely absent. Unlike before, the majority lack a sufficient revenue stream to fall back on. In addition to losing the benefits gained, it would effectively reduce the number of magazines and set the field back decades. A different solution needs to be found.
In previous volumes, I’ve identified two areas that might help with that: perceived value and pricing. With so much available for free, many readers don’t see the point in paying for it even when they highly value the work itself. PBS and the others have faced the same problem for a longer period of time, but have found little in the way of solutions that might help. (It is interesting to note, however, that they have full-time paid staff.) As we’ve seen, victories will be small—one person at a time—and very slowly improve things, perhaps (unfortunately) too slowly. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try! So if you’re among those reading but not supporting a magazine, you could make a difference by subscribing.
Perceived value also impacts how things can be priced. In that way, the problem has extended itself to impact paywall magazines as well. The digital subscription and single-issue prices of genre magazines—paywalled or otherwise—are relatively unchanged from what they were a decade ago. In the same amount of time, book, ebook, and audiobook prices have steadily increased. The average digital subscription price for a genre magazine is currently $1.99 or $2.99/month, when, at the minimum, it should be closer to $2.99
and $3.99. Adjusting prices in this manner would be game-changing for those magazines. It wouldn’t solve all the problems, but it would provide stability a significant number of publications have never experienced, help them inch toward fair pay rates for editors and staff, and allow others to pay authors industry rates—which are arguably low—and sometimes better.
For a while, it looked like these changes were on the horizon for several publications. The arrival of COVID-19, however, caused several to put these discussions on hold. It came up more often in 2021, but I’m currently unaware of anyone expecting to change their existing prices in 2022. However, a couple of new publications launched in 2021 did start with higher rates. Alone they aren’t a strong indicator of the impact, but so far, it doesn’t appear to have attracted criticism or any negative consequences. Others will likely follow over the next two years.
Magazines
AnalogScienceFictionandFact(analogsf.com), the ninety-one-yearold-veteran, continues to have the highest documented paid readership among the English language genre magazines. Their look was slightly updated by a new logo this year, but otherwise you’ll find them largely unchanged from prior years. Outside of the flash fiction (1000 words or less) magazines, Analogpublished more total stories combined across all lengths than any other magazine this year and the most original short stories. My favorite works were by Ray Nayler, Lettie Prell, Nick Wolven, and Alice Towey, the latter of which is included in this volume.
Asimov’sScienceFiction(asimovs.com), which shares a publisher —Dell Magazines—with Analog,has the highest digital paid readership among the English-language genre magazines. Of all the publications in 2021, they published more novellas and novelettes than any other. They had another strong year, publishing excellent stories by Ray Nayler, Nick Wolven, Suzanne Palmer, David Moles,
Mary Anne Mohanraj, Gregory Norman Bossert, Jack Skillingstead, and Ian Creasey. Four stories are included in this anthology.
Clarkesworld(clarkesworldmagazine.com), which I publish, was consistently tied with or just behind Analogin the number of short stories, novelettes, and novellas published. It finished second in overall total volume of original stories and first in translated works published in 2021. I was particularly fond of the stories by Monique Laban, Suzanne Palmer, David D. Levine, R.S.A. Garcia, Aimee Ogden, Rich Larson, Alice Towey, Ray Nayler, Grace Chan, and Arula Ratnakar. Four stories were selected for inclusion in this year’s volume.
Sheree Renée Thomas succeeded Charles Coleman Finlay as the editor of TheMagazineofFantasy&ScienceFiction(fandsf.com) starting with their March/April issue. Finlay’s last issue contained strong stories by Robert Reed and Lavie Tidhar. Thomas’ transition was handled deftly, and she has published wonderful stories from Rebecca Campbell, Meg Elison, Bo Balder, Marie Vibbert, Erin Barbeau, T.R. Napper, and Carl Taylor. Three stories are included, one from Finlay’s tenure and two from Thomas’. FutureTenseFiction(slate.com/technology/future-tense), a partnership between Slate, New America, and Arizona State University, continues to publish a mix of science fiction stories paired with companion non-fiction articles. This is one of the more reliable sources for science fiction stories that has cropped up within venues not commonly known for genre fiction. I’ve included a story by Shiv Ramdas, which was their strongest of the year.
Andy Cox produced a single, double issue of Interzone (interzone.press) after an attempted purchase by P.S. Publishing fell through. He continues to edit the magazine while searching for a suitable new owner. Shauna O’Meara provided one of their strongest stories for the year, included herein.
Lightspeed(lightspeedmagazine.com) changed its formula midyear, replacing two of their usual reprints with original flash fiction works. Even with this change, Lightspeedstill published more reprints than any other fiction magazine. Contents split fairly evenly between science fiction and fantasy. Among their best stories were
works by An Owomoyela, Rich Larson, and Yang-Yang Wang. Owomoyela and Larson’s stories are included in this volume. When compared to 2020, Tor.com(the website, not to be confused with Tordotcom Publishing or Tor Books) published significantly fewer stories in 2021, but the difference is less pronounced when compared to 2019. Their best science fiction works were by Sam J. Miller, Annalee Newitz, Carrie Vaughn, and Cooper Shrivastava, the latter of which is included in this anthology.
Uncanny(uncannymagazine.com) continues to be a strong market for fantasy, but published several science fiction stories as well. The two that stood out to me were by Aliette de Bodard and José Pablo Iriarte. Both have been included in this year’s line-up.
Anathema:SpecfromtheMargins(anathemamag.com) has a primary focus on works by queer writers of color. Of the fourteen stories they published, Kemi Ashing-Giwa’s stood out as the best.
Apex(apex-magazine.com) returned from their latest hiatus in early 2021 with a new bi-monthly schedule and two bonus themed issues focused on indigenous futurists and international futurists. My favorite stories were by Tlotlo Tsamaase and Cheryl S. Ntumy. FutureScienceFictionDigest(future-sf.com) has a strong interest in translated and international works. They are one of the few magazines outside of Clarkesworldand Samovarto publish more than a handful of translations in 2021. Their strongest story was by Ti Sha, translated from Chinese by Judith Huang.
StrangeHorizons’ (strangehorizons.com) editor-in-chief, Vanessa Rose Phin, resigned in June and the position was eliminated. Gautam Bhatia became coordinating editor in what will be a more flat “anarchic cooperation” model. They produced three special issues in 2021 focused on Friendship, Palestine, and Trans/Nonbinary themes. Their strongest stories were by Kiran Kaur Saini and B. Pladek. Sister publication, Samovar(samovar.strangehorizons.com), has a focus on works in translation and remains one of the few outlets that publishes translations in both English and its original language. Fireside(firesidefiction.com) announced organizational changes after interim editorial director Brian J. White stepped down as
editorial director. LeKesha Lewis will take over as publisher, and Chelle Parker will be managing editor.
Fiyah(fiyahlitmag.com), a quarterly publication focused on speculative fiction by and about Black people of the African Diaspora, received a well-deserved Hugo Award for Best Semiprozine in 2021. Their contributions to the field have been a significant and positive force—both in their pages as well as associated projects like Fiyahcon and the Ignyte Awards. In addition to their four issues, they also produced a Palestinian solidarity special.
Magazines Departing or Going on Hiatus
Editor S. Qiouyi Lu announced in April that their speculative poetry and flash fiction magazine, Arsenika(arsenika.ink), would shut its doors after five years. No reasons were stated.
Later that month, Experimenter Publishing Company announced that “due to ongoing legal issues with a licensing agreement” AmazingStories(amazingstories.com) would be placed on indefinite hiatus. Their single remaining issue—featuring Canadian authors and artists—was released later in the year, but nothing further is planned at this time.
In May, DeepMagic(deepmagic.co) announced that it would be closing its doors after five years. A previous incarnation of the magazine ran from 2002-06. The cited reasons for the closure were primarily financial in nature. Two issues were produced in 2021.
DepartureMirrorQuarterlypublished three issues before announcing in June that it would also cease publication after citing financial, readership, and available time as issues.
New Magazines
January was a busy month, with three new publications launching: Mermaid’sMonthly, Constelación, and DarkMatter. Mermaid’sMonthly(mermaidsmonthly.com) is exactly what it sounds like. For one year, Julia Rios—a former editor at Fireside—will
edit a magazine focused on every kind of mermaid before handing it off to someone else. Best summarized by them with the following statement: “2020 has sucked a lot and we want to do something good that would make us happy.”
Constelación(constelacionmagazine.com), a bi-lingual speculative fiction magazine, published its first issue, with a second following in October. Stories are published in both Spanish and English. Half of the stories in each issue are written by authors from the Caribbean, Latin America, and their diaspora.
DarkMatter(darkmattermagazine.com) features a blend of science fiction and horror, and was one of the few new publications to pursue a print edition. Samples and teasers are on their website, but buying the print or digital editions are the only way to read this one in its entirety.
Launched in February, khōréō(khoreomag.com) is a quarterly magazine of speculative fiction and migration. Their focus is on “diversity and elevating the voices of immigrant and diaspora authors.” Four issues featuring a balanced mix of science fiction and fantasy were published in 2021.
TheDeadlands(thedeadlands.com), a monthly speculative fiction magazine—helmed by the former editor of Shimmer, E. Catherine Tobler—published its first monthly issue in May. As you might expect from their name, they focus on works featuring “the other realms, of the ends we face here, and the beginnings we find elsewhere.”
Also in May, Eric Fomley launched Martian (themartianmagazine.com), a magazine focused on publishing science fiction drabbles (stories of exactly 100 words). Stories are released online on Monday and Friday, with individual issues appearing in ebook editions on a quarterly schedule.
In June 2021, StateofMatter(stateofmatter.in) “formed with the idea to uplift and promote, primarily, the wide diversity of Indian and South-East Asian voices” published its first issue.
Australia (and the world) gained a new speculative fiction magazine, Etherea(ethereamagazine.com). Editor Aidan Wilson is committed to having at least 25 percent of their content written by Australians. The first of their five 2021 issues appeared in August.
Cadwell Turnbull launched ManyWorlds(manyworldsforum.com), “a shared multiverse, co-created, co-owned, and co-governed by a collective of authors” in September and published three original stories and two reprints in 2021. They intend to publish individual stories, linked anthologies, novellas, and novels, but their primary goal is focused on honoring short fiction as a medium. Stories are released on the 15th of the month as part of annual “seasons.”
Veteran UK magazine Interzonehad previously been reported as sold to P.S. Publishing in late 2020, but after the deal collapsed, P.S. decided to launch ParSec(pspublishing.co.uk/parsec-79-c.asp), a new science fiction, fantasy, and horror magazine edited by Ian Whates. The first of its two 2021 issues was published in the Fall.
After a successful Kickstarter campaign in 2021, it was announced that Solarpunk(solarpunkmagazine.com) would launch as a bimonthly online publication in early 2022. They will focus on utopian science fiction and fantasy that explores the solarpunk movement and “what a better future could look like.”
Other Magazines
There’s currently a very rich assortment of magazines being published. Unfortunately, I don’t have the space to talk about them all, but I’d like to call attention to some of the others I read in the last year:Abyss&Apex(abyssapexzine.com),Andromeda Spaceways(andromedaspaceways.com),ApparitionLit (apparitionlit.com),Augur(augurmag.com),Baffling (bafflingmag.com),BeneathCeaselessSkies(beneath-ceaselessskies.com),BourbonPenn(bourbonpenn.com),CossmassInfinities (cossmass.com),DailyScienceFiction(dailysciencefiction.com), DiabolicalPlots(diabolicalplots.com),DreamForgeAnvil/ DreamForge(dreamforgemagazine.com),EscapePod (escapepod.org),FlashFictionOnline(flashfictiononline.com),Fusion Fragment(fusionfragment.com),Galaxy’sEdge(galaxysedge.com), GigaNotoSaurus(giganotosaurus.org),Hexagon (hexagonmagazine.ca),InfiniteWorlds
(infiniteworldsmagazine.com),JamesGunn'sAdAstra (adastrasf.com),Kaleidotrope(kaleidotrope.net),LadyChurchill’s RosebudWristlet(smallbeerpress.com/lcrw),LandBeyondthe World,LittleBlueMarble(littlebluemarble.ca),LunaStationQuarterly (lunastationquarterly.com),Metaphorosis (magazine.metaphorosis.com),MithilaReview(mithilareview.com), Mythaxis(mythaxis.co.uk),Neo-Opsis(neo-opsis.ca),NewMyths (newmyths.com),Omenana(omenana.com),OnSpec (onspecmag.wpcomstaging.com),PlanetScumm (planetscumm.space),Podcastle(podcastle.org),Pulphouse (pulphousemagazine.com),Reckoning(reckoning.press),SciPhi Journal(sciphijournal.org),ShorelineofInfinity (shorelineofinfinity.com),SpaceandTime(spaceandtime.net), SpeculativeNorth(tdotspec.com/speculative-north-magazine), StarShipSofa(starshipsofa.com),TheArcanist(thearcanist.io),The DreadMachine(thedreadmachine.com),TheFutureFire (futurefire.net),TranslunarTravelersLounge (translunartravelerslounge.com), and Truancy(truancymag.com). My apologies to anyone I accidentally missed.
Podcasts
Audio fiction—particularly in the form of podcasts—has become a very important component in the short fiction ecosystem. There’s a very rich assortment of science fiction works published in this form every month, ranging from multiple narrator serials like Dust (watchdust.com/listen/) to single narrator shows like LevarBurton Reads(levarburtonpodcast.com).
Many of the magazines previously noted have embraced this medium, including (but not limited to) Analog,Apex,Asimov’s, Clarkesworld,Lightspeed,and Uncanny. Other magazines that started as podcasts, such as EscapePodand StarShipSofa, now offer online text and sometimes other formats as well. Everything converges.
Many readers—or rather, listeners—are coming into the field through this medium and in some cases, it’s their preferred method of reading. As you might expect, the production quality of shows can vary, but there is almost certainly something for everyone. If you haven’t checked them out, you can do so for free directly at their websites or often, via iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher, or any of the other services currently offering them.
Anthologies andCollections
Anthologies and collections have long been an important part of the short fiction ecosystem. Unfortunately, outside of the occasional special project, our leading publishers have largely backed away from original and reprint anthologies. Filling the void are many small press publishers and crowdfunding projects. These don’t always have the best distribution or marketing, but can be well-worth the time to track down and read.
One of the interesting things about this year’s assortment of anthologies and collections was the strong showing by projects that were exclusively works in translation, particularly from Chinese and Korean authors. Leading the pack was Sinopticon, edited and translated by Xueting Christine Ni, which includes thirteen stories translated from Chinese. I was particularly impressed by Hao Jingfang and Regina Kanyu Wang’s stories, which I include herein, but Nian Yu, Ma Boyong, and others were quite good as well.
Korean author Kim Bo-young had two short story collections:I’m WaitingforYouandOtherStories(HarperCollins) and OntheOrigin ofSpeciesandOtherStories(Kaya Press) that demonstrated her range as an author. Ultimately, I chose the title story from the first collection for inclusion here.
AI:2041, a combination of science fiction stories by Chinese author Chen Qiufan and pioneering technologist Kai-Fu Lee, pairs science fiction stories with non-fiction digging into the science employed in the stories. Two made my recommended reading list.
Bora Chung’s CursedBunnycollection from Honford Star (UK) also provided much to enjoy and was shortlisted for the International Booker Prize. Algonquin Books will be issuing a domestic US paperback and ebook in 2022.
The year’s biggest surprise, however, goes to MakeShift: DispatchesfromthePost-PandemicFutureedited by Gideon Lichfield. I was dubious about an anthology on this theme surfacing while we were still in the throes of the pandemic I assumed it would be too soon—but it easily overcame that. This just goes to show that in the right hands, a well-trod or familiar theme can still be mined successfully. Kudos to Indrapramit Das, Karl Schroeder, Hannu Rajaniemi, and Ken Liu whose work you will find featured here along with Madeline Ashby who appears in the recommended reading list.
Another anthology I enjoyed was Upshot:StoriesofFinancial Futures“curated by” Lauren Beukes. My favorite stories were by Sam Beckbessinger, Charlie Human, and Tade Thompson, the latter of which I include in this edition.
Tarun K. Saint’s TheGollanczBookofSouthAsianScienceFiction, Volume2was also of note. Anil Menon and Vandana Singh’s stories were the standouts and are included in this volume.
MultispeciesCities:SolarpunkUrbanFuturesedited by Christoph Rupprecht, Deborah Cleland, Norie Tamura, Rajat Chaudhuri, and Sarena Ulibarri featured a strong story by Octavia Cade, reprinted herein.
SpeculativeLosAngelesedited by Denise Hamilton contained a strong story by S. Qiouyi Lu that I’ve included in this anthology. Among the other anthologies received were AbTerra,AbTerra 2020,BeyondtheStars:AcrosstheUniverse,AroundDistantSuns, BurningBrightly:50YearsofNovacon,CitiesofLight,CootiesShot Required,Derelict,DispatchesfromAnarres:TalesinTributeto UrsulaK.LeGuin,Disruption:NewShortFictionfromAfrica, Elemental:EarthStories,EuropeanScienceFiction#1,Everything ChangeIII,GunfightonEuropaStation,ItGetsEvenBetter,More Zion'sFiction,NovaHellas:StoriesfromFutureGreece,Outofthe Ruins,PhilosophyThroughScienceFictionStories,Relics,Wrecks
While short story collections don’t usually include new works that would be considered for this anthology, I did come across several in 2021 that are worth mentioning, including: AFewLastWordsforthe LateImmortalsby Michael Bishop, AliasSpaceby Kelly Robson, BelladonnaNightsandOtherStoriesby Alastair Reynolds, BigDark Holeby Jeffrey Ford, EvenGreaterMistakes:Storiesby Charlie Jane Anders, HowtoGettoApocalypseandOtherDisastersby Erica L. Satifka, RobotArtists&BlackSwans:TheItalianFantascienza
Storiesby Bruce Sterling, ShoggothsinTrafficandOtherStoriesby Tobias S. Buckell, SpiritsAbroad:Storiesby Zen Cho, TheArtof SpaceTravelandOtherStoriesby Nina Allen, TheBestofDavidBrin by David Brin, TheBestofHarryTurtledoveby Harry Turtledove, The BestofWalterJonWilliamsby Walter Jon Williams, TheBurningDay andOtherStrangeStoriesby Charles Payseur, TheFirstLawof Thermodynamicsby James Patrick Kelly, and TheGhostSequences by A.C. Wise.
The 2021Scorecard
The science fiction community offers a wide variety of awards to recognize various achievements in the field. The short fiction categories—and those for the people and places that publish them— have been significantly disrupted by the arrival of quality free online fiction. Its increased visibility, ease of sharing, and longer shelf life give it a significant advantage over stories published in paywalled magazines and anthologies. As attitudes towards campaigning for awards have become more permissive, online fiction has also benefited disproportionately.
If you were to go by the awards, you might be mistakenly led to believe that some of our most successful magazines and anthologies are failing or underperforming. This year’s scorecard suggests much more balance and conversations with other best of the year editors presents a consensus opinion that the best works are more distributed across the field than the awards would have you believe.
My selections for this year include thirty-one works, one less than last year. Here is how they break down by where the stories originally appeared:
My selections for this year’s anthology represent a total of sixteen different sources, two more than last year. Magazines represented two fewer stories and the same total number of venues. The plusone advantage paywall had over free magazines last year flipped this year. The total number of stories from anthologies is unchanged from last year, but the number of sources increased by one. This is the first time in two years that I’ve included an original story from a short story collection.
Standalone works are those that were published on their own and not connected to any of the other categories. Most commonly, these are separately published novellas. There were two included two years ago, but none since.
Short stories (under 7,500 words) saw a significant increase over last year, moving from seventeen to twenty-two. Novelettes (under 17,500 words) dropped from fifteen to seven as novellas (under 40,000 words) bounced back from zero to two.
A note on novellas: Tordotcom Publishing is widely considered the leader here, and dominates this category in various awards. Quality novellas can be found in a wider variety of sources than those awards reflect. Magazines—most commonly Asimov’s,Analog,F&SF, and Clarkesworld, but at least seven others published at least one in 2021—and publishers—like Tachyon (tachyonpublications.com), Neon Hemlock (neonhemlock.com), and Subterranean Press (subterraneanpress.com), among others—remain reliable sources for novellas.
And from the recommended reading list:
There were forty-six stories on the recommended reading list this year, up from forty-four in 2020. Magazines increased by seven and anthologies decreased by eleven. Collections increased by five and standalone increased by one. There are twenty-six short stories, fifteen novelettes, and five novellas on the recommended reading list.
When you combine the recommended reading list with those included in this book, the total is one greater than the previous year. Those stories were selected from twenty-seven different sources.
Notable 2021Awards
The 79th World Science Fiction Convention, Discon III, was held December 15-19, 2021. The 2021 Hugo Awards, presented at
Worldcon 79, were: Best Novel, NetworkEffectby Martha Wells; Best Novella, TheEmpressofSaltandFortuneby Nghi Vo; Best Novelette, “Two Truths and a Lie” by Sarah Pinsker; Best Short Story, “Metal Like Blood in the Dark” by T. Kingfisher; Best Series, The Murderbot Diaries by Martha Wells; Best Related Work, “Beowulf:A NewTranslation” by Maria Dahvana Headley; Best Graphic Story or Comic, ParableoftheSower:AGraphicNovelAdaptation, written by Octavia Butler, adapted by Damian Duffy, illustrated by John Jennings; Best Dramatic Presentation (long form), TheOldGuard, written by Greg Rucka, directed by Gina Prince-Bythewood; Best Dramatic Presentation (short form), TheGoodPlace: “Whenever You’re Ready,” written and directed by Michael Schur; Best Editor, Short Form, Ellen Datlow; Best Professional Editor, Long Form, Diana M. Pho; Best Professional Artist, Rovina Cai; Best Semiprozine, FIYAHMagazineofBlackSpeculativeFiction, publisher Troy L. Wiggins, executive editor DaVaun Sanders, managing editor Eboni Dunbar, poetry editor Brandon O’Brien, reviews and social media Brent Lambert, art director L. D. Lewis, and the FIYAHTeam; Best Fanzine, nerdsofafeather,flocktogether, ed. Adri Joy, Joe Sherry, The G, and Vance Kotrla; Best Fancast, TheCoodeStreetPodcast, presented by Jonathan Strahan and Gary K. Wolfe, Jonathan Strahan, producer; Best Fan Writer, Elsa Sjunneson; Best Fan Artist, Sara Felix; Best Video Game, Hades; plus the and Lodestar Award for Best Young Adult Book, AWizard’sGuidetoDefensiveBaking, by T. Kingfisher, and the Astounding Award for Best New Writer, Emily Tesh.
The 2020 Nebula Awards, presented during a virtual ceremony, on June 5, 2021, were: Best Novel, NetworkEffectby Martha Wells; Best Novella, “Ring Shout” by P. Djèlí Clark; Best Novelette, “Two Truths and a Lie” by Sarah Pinsker; Best Short Story, “Open House on Haunted Hill” by John Wiswell; Best Game Writing, Hades; Ray Bradbury Award, TheGoodPlace: “Whenever You’re Ready”; the Andre Norton Award to AWizard’sGuidetoDefensiveBaking, by T. Kingfisher; the Kate Wilhelm Solstice Award to Ben Bova, Rachel Caine, and Jarvis Sheffield; the Kevin O’ Donnell Jr. Service to SFWA
Award to Connie Willis; and the Damon Knight Memorial Grand Master Award to Nalo Hopkinson.
The 2021 World Fantasy Awards, presented during a ceremony on November 7, 2021, during the Annual World Fantasy Convention, were: Best Novel, TroubletheSaintsby Alaya Dawn Johnson; Best Novella, RiotBabyby Tochi Onyebuchi; Best Short Fiction “Glass Bottle Dancer,” by Celeste Rita Baker; Best Collection, Wherethe WildLadiesAreby Aoka Matsuda; Best Anthology, TheBigBookof ModernFantasy, edited by Ann VanderMeer and Jeff VanderMeer; Best Artist, Rovina Cai; Special Award (Professional), to C.C. Finlay, for F&SF; Special Award (Non-Professional), to Brian Attebery, for JournaloftheFantasticintheArts. Lifetime Achievement Awards to Megan Lindholm and Howard Waldrop. This year’s judges were Tobias Buckell, Siobhan Carroll, Cecilia Dart-Thornton, Brian Evenson, and Patrick Swenson.
The 2021 Locus Awards, presented during a virtual ceremony on June 26, 2021, were: Science Fiction Novel, NetworkEffectby Martha Wells; Fantasy Novel, TheCityWeBecameby N.K. Jemisin; Horror Novel, MexicanGothicby Silvia Moreno-Garcia; Young Adult Novel, AWizard’sGuidetoDefensiveBakingby T. Kingfisher; First Novel, Elatsoeby Darcie Little Badger; Novella, RingShoutby P. Djèlí Clark; Novelette, “The Pill” by Meg Elison; Short Story, “Little Free Library” by Naomi Kritzer; Anthology, TheBookofDragons, edited by Jonathan Strahan; Collection, TheHiddenGirlandOtherStories, by Ken Liu; Magazine, Tor.com; Publisher, Tor Books; Editor, Ellen Datlow; Artist, John Picacio; Non-Fiction, TheMagicofTerry Pratchett, by Marc Burrows; Illustrated and Art Book, TheArtof NASA:TheIllustrationsthatSoldtheMissions, by Piers Bizony; Special Award, Bill Campbell & Rosarium Publishing.
The IGNYTE Awards were presented during the FIYAHCON virtual convention. Winners were: Best Novel, BlackSunby Rebecca Roanhorse; Best Novel YA, Legendbornby Tracy Deonn; Best Middle Grade, GhostSquadby Claribel A. Ortega; Best Novella, RiotBaby by Tochi Onyebuchi; Best Novelette, “The Inaccessibility of Heaven” by Aliette de Bodard; Best Short Story, “You Perfect, Broken Thing” by C. L. Clark; Best in Speculative Poetry, “The Harrowing
Desgarrador” by Gabriel Ascencio Morales; Critics Award, Stitch @ Stitch’s Media Mix; Best Science Fiction Podcast, Nightlight Podcast, Tonia Ransom; Best Artist, Odera Igbokwe; Best Comics Team, ParableoftheSower, written by Octavia Butler, adapted by Damian Duffy, and illustrated by John Jennings; Best Anthology/Collected Works, APhoenixFirstMustBurn, edited by Patrice Caldwell; Best in Creative Non-Fiction, “I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream: The Duty of the Black Writer During Times of American Unrest,” by Tochi Onyebuchi; Ember Award, Dhonielle Clayton; Community Award, AnathemaMagazine:SpecfromtheMargins, Michael Matheson, Andrew Wilmot, Chinelo Onwualu.
The 2021 Dragon Award Winners were Best Science Fiction Novel, ProjectHailMaryby Andy Weir; Best Fantasy Novel, BattleGround by Jim Butcher; Best Young Adult / Middle Grade Novel, AWizard’s GuidetoDefensiveBakingby T. Kingfisher; Best Military Science Fiction or Fantasy Novel, GunRunnerby Larry Correia and John D. Brown; Best Alternate History Novel, 1637:NoPeaceBeyondThe Lineby Eric Flint and Charles Gannon; Best Media Tie-In Novel, Firefly:Generationsby Tim Lebbon; Best Horror Novel, TheHollow Placesby T. Kingfisher; Best Comic Book, X-Men by Jonathan Hickman and Mahmud Asrar; Best Graphic Novel, TheMagicians: NewClassby Lev Grossman, Lilah Sturges, and Pius Bak; Best Science Fiction or Fantasy TV Series, TheExpanse; Best Science Fiction or Fantasy Movie, TheOldGuard; Best Science Fiction or Fantasy PC / Console Game, Assassin’sCreed:Valhalla; Best Science Fiction or Fantasy Mobile Game, HarryPotter:PuzzlesandSpells; Best Science Fiction or Fantasy Board Game, Dune:Imperium; Best Science Fiction or Fantasy Miniatures / Collectible Card / Role-Playing Game, Warhammer:AgeofSigmar:SoulboundRole-PlayingGame.
The 2021 Theodore Sturgeon Memorial Award for Best Short Science Fiction was won by “An Important Failure” by Rebecca Campbell.
The 2021 Philip K. Dick Memorial Award went to DeadSpaceby Kali Wallace and a special citation went to TheEscapement, by Lavie Tidhar.
The 2021 Arthur C. Clarke Award was won by TheAnimalsinthat Countryby Laura Jean McKay.
The 2020 Otherwise Award (previously the James Tiptree, Jr. Memorial Award) was given to “Ife-Iyoku, the Tale of Imadeyunuagbon” by Oghenechovwe Donald Ekpeki.
The 2021 WSFA Small Press Award went to “Metal Like Blood in the Dark” by T. Kingfisher.
The 2019 and 2020 Sidewise Award for Alternate History were announced on December 18, 2021, at DisCon III. The 2019 winners were “Christmas Truce” by Harry Turtledove for short form and FutureofAnotherTimelineby Annalee Newitz for long form. The 2020 winners were “Moonshot” by Matthew Kresal for short form and TheDoorsofEdenby Adrian Tchaikovsky for long form.
In Memoriam
Among those the field lost in 2021 are:
Storm Constantine, author of numerous books, including the Wraeththu series, founder of Immanion Press; Kathleen Ann Goonan, Campbell Memorial Award winning and multiple Nebula Award nominated author, “The Tale of the Alcubierre Horse” was included in volume 3 of this series; Rowena Morrill, artist, World Fantasy Lifetime Achievement Award recipient and Worldcon Guest of Honor; Wanda June Alexander, fan and consulting editor for Tor Books; Michael G. Adkisson, author and editor, edited New PathwaysintoScienceFictionandFantasyfrom 1986-1992; Dean Morrissey, four time Chesley Award-winning artist, cover artist for the Kedrigern novels, Gamearth, ArsMagica, and Vorkosigan’s Game; Norton Juster, author of ThePhantomTollboothand several other books; Margaret Wander Bonanno, author, wrote several StarTrekand other tie-in novels, co-wrote Saturn’sChild with Nichelle Nichols; John Pelan, author, editor, and publisher, founded Axolotl Press, Darkside, Silver Salamander, and Midnight House; Cor Block, artist, critic, and historian, painted the covers for
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
CHAPTER VII.
T leaders of the war party next performed in Congress a scene in some respects new in the drama of history.
November 29, Peter B. Porter of New York, from the Committee of Foreign Relations, presented to the House his report, in part.
“Your committee will not incumber your journals,” it began, “and waste your patience with a detailed history of all the various matters growing out of our foreign relations The cold recital of wrongs, of injuries, and aggressions known and felt by every member of this Union could have no other effect than to deaden the national sensibility, and render the public mind callous to injuries with which it is already too familiar ”
Admission of weakness in the national sensibility gave the keynote of the report, and of the speeches that supported it. Even the allusion to the repeal of the French Decrees showed fear lest the truth might make the public mind callous to shame:—
“France at length announced the repeal of the Decrees of Berlin and Milan; and it affords a subject of sincere congratulation to be informed, through the official organs of the Government, that those decrees are, so far at least as our rights are concerned, really and practically at an end.”
Porter had not studied the correspondence of the Department of State so thoroughly as to learn that Russia and Sweden were in the act of making war to protect American rights from the operation of those decrees which, as he was informed, were “really and practically at an end.” His report ignored these difficulties, but added that England affected to deny the practical extinction of the French Decrees. In truth, England not affectedly but positively denied the extinction of those decrees; the United States offered no sufficient evidence to satisfy even themselves; and a declaration of war founded on England’s “affected” denial was in a high degree likely to deaden the national sensibility. With more reason and effect, the committee dwelt on the severity with which England enforced her blockades as far as the American coast; and last of all, added,
almost in a tone of apology, an allusion to the practice of impressments:—
“Your committee are not, however, of that sect whose worship is at the shrine of a calculating avarice; and while we are laying before you the just complaints of our merchants against the plunder of their ships and cargoes, we cannot refrain from presenting to the justice and humanity of our country the unhappy case of our impressed seamen Although the groans of these victims of barbarity for the loss of (what should be dearer to Americans than life) their liberty; although the cries of their wives and children, in the privation of protectors and parents, have of late been drowned in the louder clamors at the loss of property,—yet is the practice of forcing our mariners into the British navy, in violation of the rights of our flag, carried on with unabated rigor and severity. If it be our duty to encourage the fair and legitimate commerce of this country by protecting the property of the merchant, then indeed, by as much as life and liberty are more estimable than ships and goods, so much more impressive is the duty to shield the persons of our seamen, whose hard and honest services are employed equally with those of the merchants in advancing under the mantle of its laws the interests of their country.”
Truisms like these, matters of course in the oldest despotisms of Europe, and the foundation of even Roman society, sounded altogether new in the mouth of a democratic Legislature, which uttered them as though their force were not universally admitted. The weakness of the report in its premises was not strengthened by vigor in the self-excuses that followed, more apologetic than convincing:—
“If we have not rushed to the field of battle, like the nations who are led by the mad ambition of a single chief or the avarice of a corrupted court, it has not proceeded from a fear of war, but from our love of justice and humanity.”
As the sway of Jefferson’s philosophy ceased, these formulas, never altogether pleasing, became peculiarly repulsive. Indeed, the only sentence in the committee’s report that commanded respect was its concluding appeal to the people to abandon the policy which had proceeded, as it claimed, from their love of justice and humanity:
“The period has arrived when in the opinion of your committee it is the sacred duty of Congress to call forth the patriotism and resources
of the country. By the aid of these, and with the blessing of God, we confidently trust we shall be enabled to procure that redress which has been sought for by justice, by remonstrance, and forbearance in vain ”
The report closed with six Resolutions, recommending an increase of ten thousand men to the regular army; a levy of fifty thousand volunteers; the outfit of all the vessels of war not in actual service; and the arming of merchant vessels.
In opening the debate on the report, Porter spoke in language more candid than the report itself. “It was the determination of the committee,” he said, “to recommend open and decided war,—a war as vigorous and effective as the resources of the country and the relative situation of ourselves and our enemy would enable us to prosecute.” He went so far as to point out the intended military operations,—the destruction of British fisheries, and of British commerce with America and the West Indies, and the conquest of Canada. “By carrying on such a war at the public expense on land, and by individual enterprise at sea, we should be able in a short time to remunerate ourselves ten-fold for all the spoliations she had committed on our commerce.”
Such ideas were not unbecoming to Porter, who began life as a Federalist, and had no philosophical theories or recorded principles to explain or defend; but what Porter might advise without a qualm, was much less simple for Republicans from the South; and while his speech had its value for the public as a straightforward declaration, it had little or none for individuals who were conscious that it advised what they had always condemned. The true spokesman of the committee was not Porter, but Felix Grundy of Tennessee.
Grundy, like Henry Clay a Virginian by birth and born the same year, 1777, like Clay began his career in Kentucky, where he rose to be chief-justice of the State before he was thirty years old. In 1807 he removed from Kentucky to Tennessee, and was next elected to the Twelfth Congress expressly to advocate war. As a new member, whose duty, like that of all new members, required him to exchange some controversial hostilities with John Randolph, he could not afford to miss his mark; and when Randolph called upon him by a
sneering request to tell what were the constitutional resources of the committee and its talents, Grundy spoke. He apologized for his remarks as embarrassed, and indeed his speech showed less fluency than the subject and occasion seemed to warrant; but though it made no pretence of wit or rhetoric, it went to the heart of the subject, and dealt seriously with the difficulties which Grundy and his party felt.
“What cost me more reflection than anything else,” he admitted, “was the new test to which we are to put this government We are about to ascertain by actual experiment how far our republican institutions are calculated to stand the shock of war; and whether, after foreign danger has disappeared, we can again assume our peaceful attitude without endangering the liberties of the people ”
At the outset, Grundy stumbled upon the difficulty which checked every movement of his party. Obliged to reconcile his present action with the attitude taken by his friends in opposition to the Federalist armaments of 1798, he could only charge that the armaments of 1798 were made not for war, but to provide Executive patronage and affect domestic politics,—a charge which, whether true or not, did not meet the objection.
“If your minds are resolved on war,” continued the speaker, “you are consistent, you are right, you are still Republican; but if you are not resolved, pause and reflect, for should this Resolution pass and you then become faint-hearted, remember that you have abandoned your old principles and trod in the paths of your predecessors ”
Thus, according to Grundy, from the moment a party intended in earnest to make war against a foreign enemy, armies, loans, patronage, taxes, and every following corruption, with all the perils of European practice, became Republican. Only when armies were to be raised for domestic purposes were they unrepublican. The Administration of 1798 would gladly have accepted this test, had the Republicans then been willing to permit armaments on any terms.
Grundy weakened the argument further by attempting to show that in the present case, unlike that of 1798, sufficient cause for war existed: “It is the right of exporting the productions of our own soil and industry to foreign markets.” The statement, considering
Grundy’s reputation, was not skilfully made. The blockades maintained by England in 1811 were less hostile to American products and industry than were the decrees of Napoleon, or the French Decrees of 1798, which confiscated every American ship laden in whole or in part with goods of English origin, and closed France to every American ship that entered an English port. Grundy still maintained that the decrees of 1798 had not justified the Federalist armaments; he could hardly maintain that the British blockades of 1811 alone gave cause for armaments of the same kind,—yet this he did. “What are we now called on to decide?” he asked. “It is whether we will resist by force the attempt ... to subject our maritime rights to the arbitrary and capricious rule of her will.”
Grundy spoke of impressments as an outrage which called loudly for the interposition of the government, but he did not allege them as in themselves a sufficient cause for war. He laid more weight on the influence of England in turning the minds of the northwestern Indians toward hostilities. “War is not to commence by land or sea; it is already begun,” he said, alluding to the battle of Tippecanoe, fought a month before; yet if ever a war was aggressive, it was the war which Harrison had begun for no other object than to win the valley of the Wabash, and England had interfered neither directly nor indirectly to produce the outbreak of these hostilities.
Grundy’s next argument was still less convincing. The pledge given to France, he said, made necessary the Non-importation Law against England; but this act was an intolerable burden to the United States:—
“Ask the Northern man, and he will tell you that any state of things is better than the present Inquire of the Western people why their crops are not equal to what they were in former years, they will answer that industry has no stimulus left, since their surplus products have no markets. Notwithstanding these objections to the present restrictive system, we are bound to retain it; this, and our plighted faith to the French government have tied the Gordian knot. We cannot untie it. We can cut it with the sword.”
Reasoning like this was dear to John Randolph, never so happy as when he had such a slip to expose. In defiance of remonstrance,
the President and Congress had insisted upon imposing the nonimportation, on the ground that they had entered into a contract with France; and no sooner had they done so, than, in order to free themselves from their contract with France, they insisted upon war with England. On the same reasoning their only means of rendering the contract void was by annexing themselves to the empire of Napoleon.
Finally Grundy appealed to an argument wholly new:—
“This war, if carried on successfully, will have its advantages. We shall drive the British from our continent.... I am willing to receive the Canadians as adopted brethren. It will have beneficial political effects; it will preserve the equilibrium of the government. When Louisiana shall be fully peopled, the Northern States will lose their power; they will be at the discretion of others; they can be depressed at pleasure, and then this Union might be endangered I therefore feel anxious not only to add the Floridas to the South, but the Canadas to the North of this empire ”
Grundy was the first of Southern statesmen to express publicly the Southern belief that when Louisiana and Florida should be peopled, the Northern States would lose their power and be at the discretion of others, to be depressed at pleasure. Such was the theory of the time, and the political history of the United States seemed to support it; but the Republican party in 1798 would have looked on any of its representatives as insane who had proposed to make war on England in order to give more power to the Northern States.
To this speech John Randolph replied in his usual keen and desultory style; but Randolph’s arguments had lost historical interest, for the question was not so much whether war should be made, as upon what new ground the United States should stand. The Federalists, conscious of the change, held their peace. The Republicans, laboring to convince not their opponents but themselves, argued day after day that cause for war existed, as though they doubted their own assertion; but no sooner did they reach delicate ground than they became confused. Many of the speakers avoided argument, and resorted to declamation. The best
representative of this class was R. M. Johnson of Kentucky, who, after five years of national submission to both European belligerents, declared that a sixth year would prove fatal: “We must now oppose the further encroachments of Great Britain by war, or formally annul the Declaration of Independence.” On this doubtful foundation he imagined visionary conquests. “I should not wish to extend the boundary of the United States by war if Great Britain would leave us to the quiet enjoyment of independence; but considering her deadly and implacable enmity, and her continued hostilities, I shall never die contented until I see her expulsion from North America, and her territories incorporated with the United States.” Probably these appeals carried weight with the Western people; but even earnest supporters of war might doubt whether men of sense could be conciliated or persuaded by such oratory, or by descriptions of Harrison’s troops at Tippecanoe, “in the silent watches of the night, relieved from the fatigues of valor, and slumbering under the perfidious promises of the savages, who were infuriated and made drunk by British traders,” and so massacred unawares.
Among the Republican speakers was J. C. Calhoun, who had lately taken his seat as a member for South Carolina. Of all the new men, Calhoun was the youngest. He had not yet reached his thirtieth birthday, and his experience in life was slight even for his years; but his speech of December 12 much excelled that of Grundy in merit, showing more clearness of statement, and fairly meeting each successive point that had been made by Randolph. Little could be added to what Calhoun said, and no objection could be justly made against it, except that as an expression of principles it had no place in the past history of the Republican party.
“Sir,” exclaimed Calhoun, “I know of but one principle to make a nation great, to produce in this country not the form but the real spirit of union; and that is to protect every citizen in the lawful pursuit of his business Protection and patriotism are reciprocal This is the road that all great nations have trod ”
Of the tenets held by the Virginia school, none had been more often or more earnestly taught than that the United States ought not to be made a great nation by pursuing the road that all great nations
had trod Had Calhoun held such language in 1798, he would have been branded as a monocrat by Jefferson, and would not long have represented a Republican district; but so great was the revolution in 1811 that Calhoun, thinking little of his party and much of the nation, hardly condescended to treat with decent respect the “calculating avarice” which, though he alluded to its authors only in vague words, had been the pride of his party.
“It is only fit for shops and counting-houses,” he said, “and ought not to disgrace the seat of sovereignty by its squalid and vile appearance Whenever it touches sovereign power, the nation is ruined It is too shortsighted to defend itself It is an unpromising spirit, always ready to yield a part to save the balance It is too timid to have in itself the laws of self-preservation It is never safe but under the shield of honor ”
Not without reason did Stanford of North Carolina retort that he very well recollected to have heard precisely the same doctrines in a strain of declamation at least equally handsome, upon the same subject, and from the same State; but the time was in 1799, and the speaker was the Federalist leader of the House,—Robert Goodloe Harper.
Troup of Georgia presently followed with a criticism that seemed more sensible than any yet made. He was ready to vote, but he begged for some discretion in debate. He threatened to call for the previous question if idle verbiage and empty vociferations were to take the place of energetic conduct. “Of what avail is argument, of what avail is eloquence, to convince, to persuade—whom? Ourselves? The people? Sir, if the people are to be reasoned into a war now, it is too soon, much too soon, to begin it; if their representatives here are to be led into it by the flowers of rhetoric, it is too soon, much too soon, to begin it.” The House, he said, had chosen to debate in public a subject which should have been discussed with closed doors, to announce that its measures were intended as measures of offensive hostilities, that its army was to attack Canada; and what was all this but a declaration of war, contrary to all warlike custom,—a magnanimous notice to the enemy when, where, and how the blow would fall? Troup protested against this novel strategy, and pointed out the folly of attacking Canada if
England were given such liberal notice to reinforce it; but sensible as the warning was, the debate, which was meant to affect public opinion both in America and in England rather than to prepare for hostilities, went on as before. Even Macon insisted on the wisdom of talking, and pledged himself to support war in order to maintain “the right to export our native produce;” while old William Findley, who had sat in almost every Congress since 1790, voted for the Resolutions on the unrepublican principle that the best means to prevent war was to prepare for it. No concealment was affected of conquests to be made in the Canadas. “Ever since the report of the Committee on Foreign Relations came into the House,” said Randolph on the last day of the debate, “we have heard but one word,—like the whippoorwill, but one monotonous tone,—Canada, Canada, Canada!”
Stanford of North Carolina made one of the peculiar speeches in which he delighted, but which had ceased to irritate his party, even though he went so far as to aver that the Federalists in 1798 had more cause for war with France than existed in 1811 with England, and though he declared the Sedition Law of 1798 to be no more direct an attack on free discussion than was the “previous question” of 1810. He showed little mercy to Grundy and Calhoun, and he proved to the delight of the Federalists the inconsistency of his party; while Randolph, in another speech, redoubled his bitter comments on the changes of political faith which left no one but Stanford and himself true to the principles for which they had taken office. They talked to deaf ears. The Republican party no longer cared for principles. Under the beneficent pressure of England, the theories of Virginia were, for the time, laid aside.
The Resolutions proposed by the Committee on Foreign Relations were adopted, December 16, by what was in effect a unanimous vote. Only twenty-two members recorded their names against the increase of the regular army, and only fifteen voted against fitting out the navy. A still stronger proof of political revolution was the vote of ninety-seven to twenty-two in favor of the Resolution which authorized merchant vessels to arm. This measure had the effect of a declaration of war. In former years it had been always
rejected as improper, because it created a private war, taking from the Government and giving to private citizens the control over war and peace; but December 19 the House adopted this last and decisive measure, and while many Republicans would not vote at all, and even Lowndes and Macon voted against it, Josiah Quincy, Timothy Pitkin, and most of the extreme Federalists recorded their votes in its favor.
Meanwhile the Senate had acted. In the want of reports, no record remains of what passed in debate before December 17; but the Journal shows that William B. Giles was made chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, with Crawford and five other senators as his associates; and that Giles reported December 9 a bill for raising, not ten thousand regular troops, as the President recommended, but ten regiments of infantry, two of artillery, and one of cavalry,—in all twenty-five thousand men for five years, in addition to an existing army nominally ten thousand strong. Each regiment was to number two thousand men, and whether its ranks were filled or not, required a full complement of officers. Rumor reported, and Giles admitted, that his bill was not an Administration measure, but on the contrary annoyed the Administration, which had asked for all the regular force it could raise or organize within a year. The public, though unwilling to side with Giles against the President, could not but admit that the conquest of Canada by ten thousand men was uncertain, even with the assistance of volunteers and militia, while the entire scheme of war would become a subject of ridicule if Congress avowed the intention of vanquishing all the forces of Great Britain with only ten thousand raw troops.
Perhaps a better economy would have covered the ocean with cruisers, and have used the army only for defence; but although in any case the military result would probably have been what it was, the party which undertook to wage a great war by a government not at all equipped for the purpose, without experience and with narrow resources, proved wisdom in proportion as it showed caution. The President evidently held this opinion. Senator Anderson of Tennessee, acting probably on Executive advice, moved to amend the bill with a view of returning to the original plan of ten or twelve
thousand additional troops; and on this motion, December 17, Giles made a speech that could not have been more mischievous had he aimed only to destroy public trust in the Government. He avowed the difference between himself and the Secretary of War in regard to the number of troops needed, and he showed only too easily that the force he proposed was not more than competent to the objects of the Government; but not content with proving himself wiser than the President and the Secretary of War, he went out of his way to attack the Secretary of the Treasury with virulence that surprised the Federalists themselves.
The decrepit state of the Treasury, said Giles, was the tenderest part of the discussion; but instead of dealing tenderly with it, he denounced Gallatin, whose financial reputation, he declared, was made to his hand by others, and was founded less on facts than on anticipation. “If reliance can be placed on his splendid financial talents, only give them scope for action, apply them to the national ability and will, let them perform the simple task of pointing out the true modus operandi, and what reason have we to despair of the republic? What reason have we to doubt of the abundance of the Treasury supplies? Until now the honorable secretary has had no scope for the demonstration of his splendid financial talents.” He went so far as to assert that during the last three years all the measures that had dishonored the nation were, in a great degree, attributable to the unwillingness of Jefferson and Madison to disturb Gallatin’s popularity and repose; that the repeal of the salt tax, the failure of the embargo, the refusal to issue letters of marque, were all due to Gallatin’s influence; and that it would have been infinitely better to leave the national debt untouched, than to pay it by surrendering the smallest attribute of national sovereignty.
Giles had long been in open opposition to the President, he had intrigued with every other factious spirit to embarrass the Government, and had scandalized his own State by the bitterness of his personal hatreds; but he had not before shown himself ready to sacrifice the nation to his animosities. Every one knew that had he expected to give the Administration the splendid success of a military triumph, he would never have thrust upon it an army competent to
the purpose. Every one believed that he hoped to ruin President Madison by the war that was threatened, and wished to hasten the ruin before the next autumn election. Those who had watched Giles closely knew how successfully he had exerted himself to cripple the Treasury,—how he had guided the attacks on its resources; had by his single vote destroyed Gallatin’s only efficient instrument, the Bank; had again by his single vote repealed the salt tax against Gallatin’s wishes; and how he had himself introduced and supported that repeal of the embargo which broke the influence of Gallatin and went far to ruin Madison’s Administration before it was fairly in office. So notorious was his conduct that Senator Anderson of Tennessee and his colleague G. W. Campbell, in replying, went to the verge of the rules in charging Giles with motives of the blackest kind. Campbell pointed out that Giles’s army would frustrate its own objects; would be unable to act against Canada as quickly as would be necessary, and would cause needless financial difficulty. “I trust,” continued Campbell, “it is not the intention of any one by raising so large a regular force, thereby incurring so great an expenditure beyond what it is believed is necessary, to drain your treasury, embarrass your fiscal concerns, and paralyze the best concerted measures of government. If, however, such are the objects intended, a more effectual mode to accomplish them could not be adopted.” Giles’s speech offered an example, unparalleled in American history, of what Campbell described as “the malignity of the human mind;” but although his object was evident, only twelve senators supported Madison, while twenty-one voted for Giles’s army. As though to prove the true motive of the decision, every Federalist senator voted with Giles, and their votes gave him a majority.
Giles’s bill passed the Senate December 19, and was referred at once to the House Committee on Foreign Relations, which amended it by cutting down the number of troops from twenty-five thousand to fifteen thousand men; but when this amendment was proposed to the House, it met, in the words of Peter B. Porter, with a gust of zeal and passion. Henry Clay and the ardent war democrats combined with the Federalists to force the larger army on the President, although more than one sound Democrat invoked past experience and ordinary common-sense to prove that twenty-five thousand men
—or even half that number—could not be found in the United States willing to enlist in the regular army and submit for five years to the arbitrary will of officers whom they did not know and with whom they had nothing in common. The House voted to raise Giles’s army, but still took the precaution of requiring that the officers of six regiments only should be commissioned, until three fourths of the privates for these six regiments should have been enlisted. Another amendment was proposed giving the President discretion to raise only these six regiments, if he thought circumstances rendered the larger force unnecessary; but Grundy defeated this effort of caution by the argument that too much power had formerly been given to the Executive, and therefore Congress must insist on leaving him no discretion, but obliging him to take twice the army and double the patronage he had asked or could use. More than twenty Federalists supported Grundy, and gave him a majority of sixty-six to fifty-seven. Calhoun came to Grundy’s assistance with a more reasonable argument. Delay was becoming dangerous; the New Year had arrived; the public began to doubt whether Congress meant to act; he would vote to prevent delay.
At length, January 6, the bill passed the House by a vote of ninety-four to thirty-four. Six or eight Federalists, including Josiah Quincy, voted with the majority; six or eight Republicans, including Macon, Randolph, and Stanford, voted with the minority. The bill returned to the Senate, where the amendments were immediately and almost unanimously struck out. The House, in no kind temper, was obliged to discuss the subject once more. Even the most zealous advocates of war were staggered at the thought that all the officers of thirteen new regiments in the regular army must be at once appointed, when no one felt confident that the ranks of these regiments could ever be filled. The support given by the Federalists to every extravagant measure increased the uneasiness of Republicans; and John Randolph’s ridicule, founded as it was on truth, did not tend to calm it.
“After you have raised these twenty-five thousand men,” said Randolph, “if I may reason on an impossibility, for it has, I think, been demonstrated that these men cannot be raised, it will be an army on paper only,—shall we form a Committee of Public Safety, or
shall we depute the power to the Speaker I should not wish it in safer hands to carry on the war? Shall we declare that the Executive, not being capable of discerning the public interest, or not having spirit to pursue it, we have appointed a committee to take the President and Cabinet into custody? You have an agent to execute certain business; he asks from you a certain amount for effecting the business on hand; you give him double, you force it upon him, you compel him to waste it!”
Again the Federalists decided the result. Half of the Federalist members voted with the extreme war Republicans. The House, by sixty-seven votes to sixty, abandoned its amendments; the bill passed, as Giles had framed it, and January 11 received the President’s signature.
CHAPTER VIII.
The Army Bill was understood to decide not so much the war as the change in domestic politics. That the party of Jefferson, Madison, Gallatin, and Monroe should establish a standing army of thirty-five thousand troops in time of peace, when no foreign nation threatened attack, and should do this avowedly for purposes of conquest, passed the bounds of inconsistency and proclaimed a revolution. This radical change was no longer disguised. Clay, Calhoun, Grundy, Lowndes, and Cheves made only a bare pretence of respecting the traditions of their party; while Giles, with a quality peculiar to himself, excused his assaults on Madison by doing public penance for his ancient errors in maligning Washington. “Further information and reflection,” he said, “and practical experience of more than twenty years, have completely convinced me of the superiority of the talent of this great man as a statesman as well as a soldier, and have also admonished me of my former errors.” If in America any politician could be found to whose public character such an admission was fatal, Giles might be regarded as the person; but conduct that ruined Giles’s character only raised the reputations of Clay, Lowndes, and Calhoun. These younger men were not responsible for what had been said and done ten or fifteen years before; they had been concerned in no conspiracy to nullify the laws, or to offer armed resistance to the government; they had never rested their characters as statesmen on the chance of success in governing without armaments, and in coercing Napoleon and Pitt by peaceable means; they had no past to defend or excuse, and as yet no philosophical theories to preach,—but they were obliged to remove from their path the system their party had established, and they worked at this task with more energy and with much more success than they showed in conducting foreign war. Even a return to Washington’s system would not answer their purpose, for they were obliged to restore the extreme practices of 1798, and to re-enact the laws which had then been denounced and discarded as the essence of monarchy.
Bitterly as all good Republicans regretted to create a standing army, that vote was easy compared with other votes it made necessary. Doubtless an army was an evil, but the effects of the evil were likely to appear chiefly in the form of taxes; and the stanchest war Republicans flinched at taxation. The British minister, who saw so much of these difficulties that he could not believe in the possibility of war, reported to his Government a story which showed how uneasily the Administration balanced itself between the two bodies of its supporters. In December, during the debate on the Army Bill, the Committee of Ways and Means was repeatedly urged to produce a scheme of war-finance, but failed to do so. Foster reported, on what he called good authority, that when the chairman of that committee went to Gallatin for information to meet questions in the House, the secretary declined giving estimates until the Army Bill should be disposed of; and he explained that if he submitted a plan of taxes, the Government would be charged with wanting to damp the ardor of Congress.[129] Every one knew that the ardor of Congress feared nothing so much as damping; but every one who knew Gallatin was persuaded that as long as he remained Secretary of the Treasury, taxes must proportionally increase with debt.
Foster’s story was probably true; for although Ezekiel Bacon, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, wrote as early as Dec. 9, 1811, to the secretary for advice, the secretary delayed his answer until January 10, the day when Congress agreed to pass the Army Bill. The letter was read to the House January 20, and proved, as had been foreseen, a serious discouragement to the war spirit. Yet Gallatin made an under-estimate of financial difficulties; for while he assumed the fixed charges at $9,600,000, and estimated the receipts from customs under the existing duties at only $2,500,000 during war, he assumed also the committee’s estimate of $10,000,000 as the annual loan that would be required to meet the expense of war. In order to pay the fixed charges of government, the customs revenue must be raised to $6,000,000; and for this purpose he asked Congress not only to double the existing duties, but also to reimpose the old duty on salt. To meet the remaining charge of
$3,600,000 and the accruing interest on new loans, he asked for internal taxes to the amount of $5,000,000.
Unfortunately Gallatin had carelessly said, in his annual report of November, that a revenue of nine millions would, with the aid of loans, answer the purposes of war; while his letter of January 10 required, as was proper, that the interest of each new loan should be added annually to the nine millions. The difference amounted to $600,000 for the first year alone, and in each successive year increased taxation by at least an equal sum. Gallatin himself was in a defiant mood, as he well might be, since he saw Congress in a position where it must either submit or take the responsibility of bankrupting the Treasury; and he did not content himself with demanding unpopular taxes, but read Congress a lecture on its own conduct that had made these taxes necessary. He recalled his promise of 1808 that “no internal taxes, either direct or indirect, were contemplated even in the case of hostilities carried on against the two great belligerent powers;” and he showed that since 1808 Congress had thrown away his actual or expected balance of twenty millions, had refused to accept twenty millions that might have been obtained from the Bank, and had thus made internal taxes necessary, while making loans more difficult to obtain even on harder terms.
The sting of this reproof came at the end of the secretary’s letter, where he named the objects of internal taxation. These were spirits, refined sugar, licenses to retailers, auctions, stamps, and carriages for conveyance of persons. Here was the whole armory of Federalism, that had once already roused rebellion, and after causing the grievances which brought the Republicans into power, appeared again threatening to ruin them as it had ruined their predecessors. Standing army of thirty-five thousand men, loans, protective duties, stamps, tax on distillation,—nothing but a Sedition Law was wanting; and the previous question, as a means of suppressing discussion, was not an unfair equivalent for the Sedition Law.
Gallatin’s letter caused no little excitement in the House. Congress recoiled, and for more than a month left the subject
untouched. The chance that England might still give way, or that something might at the last prevent actual war, made every member anxious to avoid committing himself on matters of taxation. The number of representatives who favored war was supposed not to exceed forty or fifty in a House of one hundred and forty-one,—as many more would vote for war only in case they must; but the war men and the peace men united in private to fall upon Gallatin,—the first, because he had chilled the national spirit by saying that taxes must be laid; the last, because he had not said it earlier, and had not chilled the national spirit once for all.
Laying aside the question of taxes, Congress took up two other subjects of pressing importance. Every one doubted the possibility of raising a regular army, and those persons who knew best the character of the people were convinced that the war must be waged by militia on land, and by privateers on the ocean.
The House began with the militia. December 26 Porter brought in a bill authorizing the President “to accept of any company or companies of volunteers, either of artillery, cavalry, or infantry, who may associate and offer themselves for the service, not exceeding fifty thousand,” officered according to the law of the State to which the companies belonged, and liable to service for one year, with the pay of regular troops. Evidently these volunteers were State militia, and were subject to be used only for purposes defined in the Constitution. In 1798 the attempt to raise such a corps had been denounced as unconstitutional, a device to separate a part of the State militia in order to put it under the President’s power in a manner expressly forbidden by the Constitution and peculiarly dangerous to the public liberties; and although the device of 1798 was made more evident, as its efficiency was made more certain, by the provision that these corps should be officered by the President, the device of 1812 was not less offensive to men who held that Congress had no power to call out the State militia except “to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions,” of course only within the limits of the United States. The chief service desired from these volunteer corps was the conquest of Canada and the occupation of Florida; but every principle of the
Republican party would be outraged by placing the militia at the President’s orders, to serve on foreign soil.
Porter, who wanted express legislation to overcome this difficulty, stated his dilemma to the House; and the debate began quietly on the assumption that these volunteers were not to serve in Canada or Florida without their own consent, when, January 11, Langdon Cheves, with much seriousness and even solemnity of manner and language, informed the House that the Republican party had hitherto taken a wrong view of the subject. The distinguished South Carolinian affirmed doctrines that had never before been heard from Republican lips:—
“The power of declaring and making war is a great sovereign power, whose limits and extent have long been understood and well established. It has its attributes and incidental powers, which are in the same degree less equivocal than those of other powers as it excels those powers in its importance. Do you ask then for the right of Congress to employ the militia in war? It is found among the attributes of the sovereign power which Congress has to make war. Do you ask for the limits to which this employment may extend? They are coextensive with the objects of the war.”
The President himself, added Cheves, was understood to hold this opinion, and ought to be left to act under the high responsibility attached to his office. Anxious as the party was to support the President, Cheves’s speech met with protest after protest, until Henry Clay came to his support and adopted his argument. On the other hand, the Federalists, although consistency required them to take the same view, and even war Republicans, like Porter and Grundy, rejected the idea of an unlimited war power, and declared that the volunteers must be retained within the national boundaries. The point was left unsettled; January 17 the House passed the bill by a vote of eighty-seven to twenty-three, leaving the decision in the President’s hands, or, what was worst of all, in the hands of the volunteers. In the Senate, Giles made an interesting speech against the bill, avoiding the constitutional question, but arguing that the volunteer force would prove inefficient, and that a regular army could alone serve the purposes of war. He had no difficulty in proving the correctness of his view and the fatal folly of short enlistments; but he
