Sea Power in its Relations to the War of 1812. Volume 1

It was therefore enacted that no vessel, coasting or registered, should load, without first having obtained permission from the custom-house, and given bond, in six times the value of the cargo, that she would not depart without a clearance, nor after clearing go to any foreign port, or transfer her lading to any other vessel. The loading was to be under the inspection of revenue officers. Ships already loaded, when notice of the Act was received, must unload or give bonds. Further to insure compliance, vessels bound coastwise must, within two months after sailing, deposit with the collector at the port of clearance a certificate from the collector at the port of destination, that they had arrived there. If going to New Orleans from the Atlantic coast, four months were allowed for this formality. Failing this, proof of total loss at sea would alone relieve the bond. "Neither capture, distress, nor any other accident, shall be pleaded or given in evidence." Collectors were empowered to take into custody specie and goods, whether on vessels or land vehicles, when there was reason to believe them intended for exportation; and authority was given to employ the army and navy, and the militia, for carrying out this and the other embargo legislation. A further provision of thirty armed vessels, to stop trade, was made by this Congress; which otherwise, like its predecessors and successors, was perfectly faithful to the party tradition not to protect trade, or seek peace, by providing a navy.

All this was sitting on the safety valve. However unflattering to national self-esteem it might be to see national legislation universally disregarded, the leakage of steam by evasion had made the tension bearable. The Act also opened to a number of subaltern executive officers, of uncertain discretion, an opportunity for arbitrary and capricious action, to which the people of the United States were unaccustomed. Already a justice of a circuit court had decided in opposition to instructions issued by the President himself. The new legislation was followed by an explosion of popular wrath and street demonstrations. These were most marked in the Eastern states, where the opposition party and the shipping interest were strongest. Feeling was the more bitter, because the revolt of Spain, and the deliverance of Portugal, had exempted those nations and their extensive colonies from the operation of the British Orders in Council, had paralyzed in many of their ports the edicts of Napoleon, and so had extended widely the field safe for neutral commerce. It was evident also that, while the peninsula everywhere was the scene of war, it could not feed itself; nor could supplies for the population, or for the British armies there, come from England, often narrowly pressed herself for grain. Cadiz was open on August 26; all neutrals admitted, and the British blockade raised. Through that portal and Lisbon might flow a golden tide for American farmers and shipmen. The town meetings of New England again displayed the power for prompt political agitation which so impressed the imagination of Jefferson. The Governor of Connecticut refused, on constitutional grounds, to comply with the President's request to detail officers of militia, to whom collectors could apply when needing assistance to enforce the laws. The attitude of the Eastern people generally was that of mutiny; and it became evident that it could only be repressed by violence, and with danger to the Union.

Congress was not prepared to run this risk. On February 8, less than a month after the Enforcement Act became law, its principal supporter in the Senate[279 - Giles of Virginia. Annals of Congress, 1808-09, pp. 353-381.] introduced a resolution for the partial repeal of the Embargo Act. "This is not of my choice," he said, "nor is the step one by which I could wish that my responsibility should be tested. It is the offspring of conciliation, and of great concession on my part. On one point we are agreed,—resistance to foreign aggressions. The points of difficulty to be adjusted,—and compromised,—relate to the extent of that resistance and the mode of its application. In my judgment, if public sentiment could be brought to support them, wisdom would dictate the combined measures of embargo, non-intercourse, and war. Sir, when the love of peace degenerates into fear of war, it becomes of all passions the most despicable." It was not the first time the word "War" had been spoken, but the occasion made it doubly significant and ominous; for it was the requiem of the measure upon which the dominant party had staked all to avoid war, and the elections had already declared that power should remain in the same hands for at least two years to come. Within four weeks Madison was to succeed his leader, Jefferson; with a Congressional majority, reduced indeed, but still adequate.

The debate over the new measure, known as the Non-Intercourse Act, was prolonged and heated, abounding in recriminations, ranging over the whole gamut of foreign injuries and domestic misdoings, whether by Government policy or rebellious action; but clearer and clearer the demand for war was heard, through and above the din. "When the late intelligence from the northeast reached us," said an emotional follower of the Administration,[280 - Williams of South Carolina. Annals of Congress, 1808-09, p. 1236.] "it bore a character most distressful to every man who valued the integrity of the Government. Choosing not to enforce the law with the bayonet, I thought proper to acknowledge to the House that I was ready to abandon the embargo.... The excitement in the East renders it necessary that we should enforce it by the bayonet, or repeal. I will repeal, and could weep over it more than over a lost child." There was, he said, nothing now but war. "The very men who now set your laws at defiance," cried another, "will be against you if you go to war;" but he added, "I will never let go the embargo, unless on the very same day on which we let it go, we draw the sword."[281 - Nelson of Maryland. Annals of Congress, 1808-09, p. 1258.]

Josiah Quincy, an extremist on the other side, gave a definition of the position of Massachusetts, which from his ability, and his known previous course on national questions, is particularly valuable. In the light of the past, and of what was then future, it may be considered to embody the most accurate summary of the views prevailing in New England, from the time of the "Chesapeake" affair to the war. He "wished a negotiation to be opened, unshackled with the impedimenta which now exist. As long as they remained, people in the part of the country whence he came would not deem an unsuccessful attempt at negotiation cause for war. If they were removed, and an earnest attempt at negotiation made, unimpeded by these restrictions, and should not meet with success, they would join heartily in a war. They would not, however, go to war to contest the right of Great Britain to search American vessels for British seamen; for it was the general opinion with them that, if American seamen were encouraged, there would be no need for the employment of foreign seamen."[282 - Annals of Congress, 1808-09, pp. 1438-1439.] Quincy therefore condemned the retaliatory temper of the Administration, as shown in the "Chesapeake" incident by the proclamation excluding British ships of war, and in the embargo as a reply to the Orders in Council. The oppression of American trade, culminating in the Orders, was a just cause of war; but war was not expedient before a further attempt at negotiation, favored by a withdrawal of all retaliatory acts. He was willing to concede the exercise of British authority on board American merchantmen on the high seas.

In the main these were the coincident opinions of Monroe, although a Virginian and identified with the opposite party. At this time he wrote to Jefferson privately, urging a special mission, for which he offered his services. "Our affairs are evidently at a pause, and the next step to be taken, without an unexpected change, seems likely to be the commencement of war with both France and Great Britain, unless some expedient consistent with the honor of the Government and Country is adopted to prevent it." To Jefferson's rejection of the proposition he replied: "I have not the hope you seem still to entertain that our differences with either Power will be accommodated under existing arrangements. The embargo was not likely to accomplish the desired effect, if it did not produce it under the first impression.... Without evidence of firm and strong union at home, nothing favorable to us can be expected abroad, and from the symptoms in the Eastern states there is much cause to fear that tranquillity cannot be secured at present by adherence only to the measures which have heretofore been pursued."[283 - Monroe to Jefferson, Jan. 18 and Feb. 2, 1809. Monroe's Works, vol. v. pp. 91, 93-95.] Monroe had already[284 - To John Taylor, January 9. Ibid., p. 89.] expressed the opinion—not to Jefferson, who had refused to ratify, but to a common intimate—that had the treaty of December 31, 1806, signed by himself and Pinkney, been accepted by the Administration, none of the subsequent troubles with France and Great Britain would have ensued; that not till the failure of accommodation with Great Britain became known abroad was there placed upon the Berlin Decree that stricter interpretation which elicited the Orders in Council, whence in due sequence the embargo, the Eastern commotions, and the present alarming outlook. In principle, Quincy and Monroe differed on the impressment question, but in practical adjustment there was no serious divergence. In other points they stood substantially together.

Under the combined influences indicated by the expressions quoted, Congress receded rapidly from the extreme measures of domestic regulation embodied in the various Embargo Acts and culminating in that of January 9. The substitute adopted was pronouncedly of the character of foreign policy, and assumed distinctly and unequivocally the hostile form of retaliation upon the two countries under the decrees of which American commerce was suffering. It foreshadowed the general line of action followed by the approaching new Administration, with whose views and purposes it doubtless coincided. Passed in the House on February 27, 1809, it was to go into effect May 20, after which date the ports of the United States were forbidden to the ships of war of both France and Great Britain, except in cases of distress, or of vessels bearing despatches. Merchant vessels of the two countries were similarly excluded, with a provision for seizure, if entering. Importation from any part of the dominions of those states was prohibited, as also that of any merchandise therein produced. Under these conditions, and with these exceptions, the embargo was to stand repealed from March 15 following; but American and other merchant vessels, sailing after the Act went into operation, were to be under bonds not to proceed to any port of Great Britain or France, nor during absence to engage in any trade, direct or indirect, with such port. From the general character of these interdictions, stopping both navigation and commerce between the United States and the countries proscribed, this measure was commonly called the Non-Intercourse Act. Its stormy passage through the House was marked by a number of amendments and proposed substitutes, noticeable principally as indicative of the growth of warlike temper among Southern members. There were embodied with the bill the administrative and police clauses necessary for its enforcement. Finally, as a weapon of negotiation in the hands of the Government, there was a provision, corresponding to one in the original Embargo Act, that in case either France or Great Britain should so modify its measures as to cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States, the President was authorized to proclaim the fact, after which trade with that country might be renewed. In this shape the bill was returned to the Senate, which concurred February 28. Next day it became law, by the President's signature.

The Enforcement Act and the Non-Intercourse Act, taken together and in their rapid sequence, symbolize the death struggle between Jefferson's ideal of peaceful commercial restriction, unmitigated and protracted, in the power of which he had absolute faith, and the views of those to whom it was simply a means of diplomatic pressure, temporary, and antecedent to war. Napoleon himself was not more ruthless than Jefferson in his desired application of commercial prohibition. Not so his party, in its entirety. The leading provisions of the Non-Intercourse Act, by partially opening the door and so facilitating abundant evasion, traversed Jefferson's plan. It was antecedently notorious that their effect, as regarded Great Britain, would be to renew trade with her by means of intermediary ports. Yet that they were features in the policy of the men about to become prominent under the coming Administration was known to Canning some time before the resolution was introduced by Giles; before the Enforcement Act even could reach England. Though hastened by the outburst in New England, the policy of the Non-Intercourse Act was conceived before the collapse of Jefferson's own measure was seen to be imminent.

On January 18 and 22 Canning, in informal conversations with Pinkney, had expressed his satisfaction at proceedings in Congress, recently become known, looking to the exclusion of French ships equally with British, and to the extension of non-importation legislation to France as well as Great Britain.[285 - Pinkney, in connection with these, speaks of the "expected" Act of Congress. American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. iii. p. 299.] He thought that such measures might open the way to a withdrawal of the Orders in Council, by enabling the British Government to entertain the overture, made by Pinkney August 23, under instructions, that the President would suspend the embargo, if the British Government would repeal its orders. This he conceived could not be done, consistently with self-respect, so long as there was inequality of treatment. In these anticipations he was encouraged by representations concerning the attitude of Madison and some intended members of his Cabinet, made to him by Erskine, the British Minister in Washington, who throughout seems to have cherished an ardent desire to reconcile differences which interfered with his just appreciation even of written words,—much more of spoken.

In the interview of the 22d Pinkney confined himself to saying everything "which I thought consistent with candor and discretion to confirm him in his dispositions." He suggested that the whole matter ought to be settled at Washington, and "that it would be well (in case a special mission did not meet their approbation) that the necessary powers should be sent to Mr. Erskine."[286 - American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. iii. p. 299.] He added, "I offered my intervention for the purpose of guarding them against deficiencies in these powers."[287 - This sentence was omitted in the papers when submitted to Congress.] The remark is noteworthy, for it shows Pinkney's sense that Erskine's mere letter of credence as Minister Resident, not supplemented by full powers for the special transaction, was inadequate to a binding settlement of such important matters. In the sequel the American Administration did not demand of Erskine the production either of special powers or of the text of his instructions; a routine formality which would have forestalled the mortifying error into which it was betrayed by precipitancy, and which became the occasion of a breach with Erskine's successor.

The day after his interview with Pinkney, Canning sent Erskine instructions,[288 - State Papers, p. 300.] the starting-point of which was that the Orders in Council must be maintained, unless their object could be otherwise accomplished. Assuming, as an indispensable preliminary to any negotiation, that equality of treatment between British and French ships and merchandise would have been established, he said he understood further from Erskine's reports of conversations that the leading men in the new Administration would be prepared to agree to three conditions: 1. That, contemporaneously with the withdrawal of the Orders of January 7 and November 11, there would be a removal of the restrictions upon British ships and merchandise, leaving in force those against French. 2. The claim, to carry on with enemies' colonies a trade not permitted in peace, would be abandoned for this war. 3. Great Britain should be at liberty to secure the operation of the Non-Intercourse measures, still in effect against France, by the action of the British Navy, which should be authorized to capture American vessels seeking to enter ports forbidden them by the Non-Intercourse Act. Canning justly remarked that otherwise Non-Intercourse would be nugatory; there would be nothing to prevent Americans from clearing for England or Spain and going to Holland or France. This was perfectly true. Not only had a year's experience of the embargo so demonstrated, but a twelvemonth later[289 - February 7, 1810. American State Papers, Commerce and Navigation, vol. i. p. 812.] Gallatin had to admit that "the summary of destinations of these exports, being grounded on clearances, cannot be relied on under existing circumstances. Thus, all the vessels actually destined for the dominions of Great Britain, which left the United States between April 19 and June 10, 1809, cleared for other ports; principally, it is believed, for Sweden." Nevertheless, the proposition that a foreign state should enforce national laws, because the United States herself could not, was saved from being an insult only by the belief, extracted by Canning from Erskine's report of conversations, that Madison, or his associates, had committed themselves to such an arrangement. He added that Pinkney "recently (but for the first time)" had expressed an opinion to the same effect.

The British Government would consent to withdraw the Orders in Council on the conditions cited; and for the purpose of obtaining a distinct and official recognition of them, Canning authorized Erskine to read his letter in extenso to the American Government. Had this been done, as the three concessions were a sine quâ non, the misunderstanding on which the despatch was based would have been at once exposed; and while its assumptions and tone could scarcely have failed to give offence, there would have been saved the successive emotions of satisfaction and disappointment which swept over the United States, leaving bitterness worse than before. Instead of communicating Canning's letter, Erskine, after ascertaining that the conditions would not be accepted, sent in a paraphrase of his own, dated April 18,[290 - The correspondence between Erskine and the Secretary of State on this occasion is in American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. iii. pp. 295-297.] in which he made no mention of the three stipulations, but announced that, in consequence of the impartial attitude resulting from the Non-Intercourse Act, his Majesty would send a special envoy to conclude a treaty on all points of the relations between the two countries, and meanwhile would be willing to withdraw the Orders of January 7 and November 11, so far as affecting the United States, in the persuasion that the President would issue the proclamation restoring intercourse. This advance was welcomed, the assurance of revocation given, and the next day Erskine wrote that he was "authorized to declare that the Orders will have been withdrawn as respects the United States on the 10th day of June next." The same day, by apparent preconcertment, in accordance with Canning's requirement that the two acts should be coincident, Madison issued his proclamation, announcing the fact of the future withdrawal, and that trade between the United States and Great Britain might be renewed on June 10.

Erskine's proceeding was disavowed instantly by the British Government, and himself recalled. A series of unpleasant explanations followed between him and the members of the American Government,[291 - American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. iii. pp. 304-308.] astonished by the interpretation placed upon their words, as shown in Canning's despatch. Canning also had to admit that he had strained Erskine's words, in reaching his conclusions as to the willingness of Madison and his advisers to allow the enforcement of the Non-Intercourse Act by British cruisers;[292 - Ibid., p. 303.] while Pinkney entirely disclaimed intending any such opinion as Canning imagined him to have expressed.[293 - Ibid.] The British Secretary was further irritated by the tone of the American replies to Erskine's notes; but he "forbore to trouble"[294 - Ibid., p. 301.] Pinkney with any comment upon them. That would be made through Erskine's successor; an unhappy decision, as it proved. No explanation of the disavowal was given; but the instructions sent were read to Pinkney by Canning, and a letter followed saying that Erskine's action had been in direct contradiction to them. Things thus returned to the momentarily interrupted condition of American Non-Intercourse and British Orders in Council; the British Government issuing a temporary order for the protection of American vessels which might have started for the ports of Holland in reliance upon Erskine's assurances. From America there had been numerous clearances for England; and it may be believed that there would have been many more if the transient nature of the opportunity had been foreseen. August 9, Madison issued another proclamation, annulling the former.

While Erskine was conducting his side negotiation, the British Government had largely modified the scope of the restrictions laid upon neutral trade. In consequence of the various events which had altered its relations with European states and their dependencies, the Orders of November, 1807, were revoked; and for them was substituted a new one, dated April 26, 1809,[295 - American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. iii. p. 241.] similar in principle but much curtailed in extent. Only the coasts of France itself, of Holland to its boundary, the River Ems, and those of Italy falling under Napoleon's own dominion, from Orbitello to Pesaro, were thenceforth to be subject to "the same restrictions as if actually blockaded." Further, no permission was given, as in the former Orders, to communicate with the forbidden ports by first entering one of Great Britain, paying a transit duty, and obtaining a permit to proceed. In terms, prohibition was now unqualified; and although it was known that licenses for intercourse with interdicted harbors were freely issued, the overt offence of prescribing British channels to neutral navigation was avoided. Within the area of restriction, "No trade save through England" was thus converted, in form, to no trade at all. This narrowing of the constructive blockade system, combined with the relaxations effected by the Non-Intercourse Act, and with the food requirements of the Spanish peninsula, did much to revive American commerce; which, however, did not again before the war regain the fair proportions of the years preceding the embargo. The discrepancy was most marked in the re-exportation of foreign tropical produce, sugar and coffee, a trade dependent wholly upon war conditions, and affecting chiefly the shipping interest engaged in carrying it. For this falling off there were several causes. After 1809 the Continental system was more than ever remorselessly enforced, and it was to the Continent almost wholly that Americans had carried these articles. The Spanish colonies were now open to British as well as American customers; and the last of the French West Indies having passed into British possession, trade with them was denied to foreigners by the Navigation Act. In 1807 the value of the colonial produce re-exported from the United States was $59,643,558; in 1811, $16,022,790. The exports of domestic productions in the same years were: 1807, $48,699,592; in 1811, $45,294,043. In connection with these figures, as significant of political conditions, it is interesting to note that of the latter sum $18,266,466 went to Spain and Portugal, chiefly to supply demands created by war. So with tropical produce; out of the total of $16,022,790, $5,772,572 went to the Peninsula, and an equal amount to the Baltic, that having become the centre of accumulation, from which subsequent distribution was made to the Continent in elusion of the Continental System. The increasing poverty of the Continent, also, under Napoleon's merciless suppression of foreign commerce, greatly lessened the purchasing power of the inhabitants. The great colonial trade had wasted under the combined action of British Orders and French Decrees, supplemented by changes in political relations. The remote extremities of the Baltic lands and the Spanish peninsula now alone sustained its drooping life.

Coincident with Erskine's recall had been the appointment of his successor, Mr. Francis J. Jackson, who took with him not only the usual credentials, but also full powers for concluding a treaty or convention.[296 - American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. iii. p. 318.] He departed for his post under the impulse of the emotions and comments excited by the manner and terms in which Erskine's advances had been met, with which Canning had forborne to trouble Pinkney. Upon his arrival in Washington, disappointment was expressed that he had no authority to give any explanations of the reasons why his Government had disavowed arrangements, entered into by Erskine, concerning not only the withdrawal of the Orders in Council,—as touching the United States,—but also the reparation for the "Chesapeake" business. This Erskine had offered and concluded, coincidently with the revocation of the Orders, though not in connection with it; but in both instances his action was disapproved by his Government. After two verbal conferences, held within a week of Jackson's arrival, the Secretary of State, Mr. Robert Smith, notified him on October 9 that it was thought expedient, for the present occasion, that further communication on this matter should be in writing. There followed an exchange of letters, which in such circumstances passed necessarily under the eyes of President Madison, who for the eight preceding years had held Smith's present office.

This correspondence[297 - American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. iii. pp. 308-319.] presents an interesting exhibition of diplomatic fencing; but beyond the discussion, pro and con, of the matters in original and continuous dispute between the two countries, the issue turned upon the question whether the United States had received the explanation due to it,—in right and courtesy,—of the reasons for disavowing Erskine's agreements. Smith maintained it had not. Jackson rejoined that sufficient explanation had been given by the terms of Canning's letter of May 27 to Pinkney, announcing that Erskine had been recalled because he had acted in direct contradiction to his instructions; an allegation sustained by reading to the American minister the instructions themselves. In advancing this argument, Jackson stated also that Canning's three conditions had been made known by Erskine to the American Government, which, in declining to admit them, had suggested substitutes finally accepted by Erskine; so that the United States understood that the arrangement was reached on another basis than that laid down by Canning. This assertion he drew from the expressions of Erskine in a letter to Canning, after the disavowal. Smith replied that Erskine, while not showing the despatch, had stated the three stipulations; that they had been rejected; and that the subsequent arrangement had been understood to be with a minister fully competent to recede from his first demand and to accept other conditions. Distinctly he affirmed, that the United States Government did not know, at any time during the discussion preceding the agreement, that Erskine's powers were limited by the conditions in the text of his instructions, afterwards published. That he had no others, "is now for the first time made known to this Government," by Jackson's declaration.

Jackson had come prepared to maintain, not only the British contention, but the note set by Canning for British diplomatic correspondence. He was conscious too of opposing material force to argument, and had but recently been amid the scenes at Copenhagen, which had illustrated Nelson's maxim that a fleet of ships of the line were the best negotiators in Europe. The position has its advantages, but also its dangers, when the field of warfare is that of words, not deeds; and in Madison, who superintended the American case, he was unequally matched with an adversary whose natural dialectical ability had been tempered and sharpened in many campaigns. There is noticeable, too, on the American side, a labored effort at acuteness of discrimination, an adroitness to exaggerate shades of difference practically imperceptible, and an aptitude to give and take offence, not so evident under the preceding Administration. These suggest irresistibly the absence, over Madison the President, of a moderating hand, which had been held over Madison the Secretary of State. It may be due also to the fact that both the President and his Cabinet were somewhat less indisposed to war than his predecessor had been.

In his answer to Smith Jackson reiterated, what Smith had admitted, that Erskine had made known the three conditions. He added, "No stronger illustration of the deviation from them which occurred can be given than by a reference to the terms of the agreement." As an incidental comment, supporting the contention that Erskine's departure from his sole authority was so decisive as to be a sufficient explanation for the disavowal of his procedure, the words were admissible; so much so as to invite the suspicion that the opponent, who had complained of the want of such explanation, felt the touch of the foil, and somewhat lost temper. Whatever impression of an insinuation the phrase may have conveyed should have been wholly removed by the further expression, in close sequence, "You are already acquainted with the instruction given; and I have had[298 - Author's italics.] the honor of informing you it was the only one." Smith's knowledge that Erskine's powers were limited to the one document is here attributed explicitly to Jackson. The Secretary (or President) saw fit not to recognize this, but took occasion to administer a severe rebuke, which doubtless the general tone of Jackson's letter tended to provoke. "I abstain, sir, from making any particular animadversions on several irrelevant and improper allusions in your letter.... But it would be improper to conclude the few observations to which I purposely limit myself, without adverting to your repetition of a language implying a knowledge, on the part of this Government, that the instructions of your predecessor did not authorize the arrangement formed by him. After the explicit and peremptory asseveration that this Government had no such knowledge, and that with such a knowledge no such arrangement would have been entered into, the view which you have again presented of the subject makes it my duty to apprise you that such insinuations are inadmissible in the intercourse of a foreign minister with a Government that understands what it owes to itself."

Whatever may be thought of the construction placed upon Jackson's words by his opponent, this thrust should have made him look to his footing; but arrogance and temper carried the day, and laid him open to the fatal return which he received. By drawing attention to the qualifying phrase, he could have shown that he had been misunderstood, but he practically accepted the interpretation; for, instead of repelling it, he replied: "In my correspondence with you I have carefully avoided drawing conclusions that did not necessarily follow from the premises advanced by me, and least of all should I think of uttering an insinuation where I was unable to substantiate a fact. To facts, such as I have become acquainted with them, I have scrupulously adhered, and in so doing I must continue, whenever the good faith of his Majesty's Government is called in question," etc. To this outburst the reply was: "You have used language which cannot but be understood as reiterating, and even aggravating, the same gross insinuation. It only remains, in order to preclude opportunities which are thus abused, to inform you that no further communications will be received from you, and that the necessity for this determination will, without delay, be made known to your Government." Jackson thereupon quitted Washington for New York, leaving a chargé d'affaires for transacting current business.

Before leaving the city, however, Jackson, through the channel of the chargé, made a statement to the Secretary of State. In this he alleged that the facts which he considered it his duty to state, and to the assertion of which, as facts, exception was taken, and his dismissal attributed, were two. One was, that the three conditions had been submitted by Mr. Erskine to the Secretary of State. This the Secretary had admitted. "The other, namely: that that instruction is the only one, in which the conditions were prescribed to Mr. Erskine, for the conclusion of an arrangement on the matter to which it related, is known to Mr. Jackson by the instructions which he has himself received." This he had said in his second letter; if somewhat obscurely, still not so much so but that careful reading, and indisposition to take offence, could have detected his meaning, and afforded him the opportunity to be as explicit as in this final paper. If Madison, who is understood to have given special supervision to this correspondence,[299 - See Madison's Works, vol. ii. p. 499.] meant the severe rebuke conveyed by his reply as a feint, to lead the British minister incautiously to expose himself to a punishment which his general bearing and that of his Government deserved, he assuredly succeeded; yet it may be questioned who really came best out of the encounter. Jackson had blundered in words; the American Administration had needlessly intensified international bitterness.

Prepossession in reading, and proneness to angry misconception, must be inferred in the conduct of the American side of this discussion; for another notable and even graver instance occurs in the despatch[300 - American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. iii. 319-322.] communicating Jackson's dismissal to Pinkney, beyond whose notice it probably was not allowed to go. Canning, in his third rejected condition, had written:

Great Britain, for the purpose of securing the operation of the embargo, and of the bonâ fide intention of America to prevent her citizens from trading with France, and the Powers adopting and acting under the French decrees, is to be considered as being at liberty to capture all such American vessels as shall be found attempting to trade with the ports of such Powers;[301 - The italics in this quotation (American State Papers, vol. iii. p. 300) are introduced by the author, to draw attention to the words decisive to be noted.]

and he explained that, unless such permission was granted, "the raising of the embargo nominally as to Great Britain, would raise it, in fact, with respect to all the world," owing to the evident inability of the United States to enforce its orders beyond its own ports.

In the passage quoted, both the explanatory comment and the syntax show that the object of this proposed concession was to secure the operation, the effectual working, of the bonâ fide intention expressly conceded to the American Government. The repetition of the preposition "of," before bonâ fide, secures this meaning beyond peradventure. Nevertheless Smith, in labored arraignment of the whole British course, wrote to Pinkney as follows:

In urging this concession, Mr. Canning has taken a ground forbidden by those principles of decorum which regulate and mark the proceedings of Governments towards each other. In his despatch the condition is stated to be for the purpose of securing the bonâ fide intention of America, to prevent her citizens from trading with France and certain other Powers; in other words to secure a pledge to that effect against the malâ fide intention of the United States. And this despatch too was authorized to be communicated in extenso to the Government, of which such language was used.[302 - The italics are Smith's. They serve exactly, however, to illustrate just wherein consists the perverseness of omission (the words "operation of"), and the misstatement of this remarkable passage.]

Being addressed only to Pinkney, a man altogether too careful and shrewd not to detect the mistake, no occasion arose for this grave misstatement doing harm, or receiving correction. But, conjoined with the failure to note that Jackson in his second letter had attributed to his own communication the American Government's knowledge that Erskine had no alternative instructions, the conclusion is irresistible that the President acted, perhaps unconsciously, under impulses foreign to the deliberate care which should precede and accompany so momentous an act as the refusal to communicate with an accredited foreign minister. It will be remembered that this action was taken on grounds avowedly independent of the reasonableness or justice of the British demands. It rested purely on the conduct of the minister himself.

This incident powerfully furthered the alienation of the two nations, for the British Government not only refused to disapprove Jackson's conduct, but for nearly two years neglected to send a successor, thus establishing strained diplomatic relations. Before finally leaving this unlucky business, it is due to a complete appreciation to mention that, in its very outset, at the beginning of Erskine's well-meant but blundering attempt, the United States Government had overpassed the limits of diplomatic civility. Canning was a master of insolence; he could go to the utmost verge of insult and innuendo, without absolutely crossing the line which separates them from formal observance of propriety; but it cannot be said that the American correspondence in this instance was equally adroit. In replying to Erskine's formal offer of reparation for the "Chesapeake" affair, certain points essential to safeguarding the position of the United States were carefully and properly pointed out; then the reparation, as tended, was accepted. There the matter might have dropped; acceptance is acceptance; or, if necessary, failure of full satisfaction on the part of the United States might have been candidly stated, as due to itself. But the Secretary[303 - Secretary Smith subsequently stated that this sentence was added by express interposition of the President. (Smith's Address to the American people.)] proceeded to words—and mere words—reflecting on the British Sovereign and Government. "I have it in express charge from the President to state, that, while he forbears to insist upon the further punishment of the offending officer, he is not the less sensible of the justice and utility of such an example, nor the less persuaded that it would best comport with what is due from his Britannic Majesty to his own honor."

To the writer nothing quite as bad as this occurs in Jackson's letters, objectionable as they were in tone. With the opinion he agrees; the further employment of Berkeley was indecent, nor was he a man for whom it could be claimed that he was indispensable; but it is one thing to hold an opinion, and another to utter it to the person concerned. Had Madison meant war, he might have spoken as he did, and fought; but to accept, and then to speak words barren of everything but useless insult, is intolerable. Jackson very probably believed that the American Government was lying when it said it did not know the facts as to Erskine's instructions.[304 - Canning in his instructions to Jackson (No. 1, July 1, 1809, Foreign Office MSS.) wrote: "The United States cannot have believed that such an arrangement as Mr. Erskine consented to accept was conformable to his instructions. If Mr. Erskine availed himself of the liberty allowed to him of communicating those instructions in the affair of the Orders in Council, they must have known that it was not so." My italics.] It would be quite in character that he should; but he did not say so. There was put into his mouth a construction of his words which he heedlessly accepted.

Jackson's dismissal was notified to the British Government through Pinkney, on January 2, 1810.[305 - American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. iii. p. 352.] Some time before, a disagreement within the British Cabinet had led to a duel between Castlereagh and Canning, in which the latter was severely wounded. He did not return to the Foreign Office, but was succeeded by the Marquis Wellesley, brother of the future Duke of Wellington. After presenting the view of the correspondence taken by his Government, Pinkney seems to betray a slight uneasiness as to the accuracy of the interpretation placed on Jackson's words. "I willingly leave your Lordship to judge whether Mr. Jackson's correspondence will bear any other construction than that it in fact received; and whether, supposing it to have been erroneously construed, his letter of the 4th of November should not have corrected the mistake, instead of confirming and establishing it."

Wellesley, with a certain indolent nonchalance, characteristic of his correspondence with Pinkney, delayed to answer for two months, and then gave a reply as indifferent in manner as it was brief in terms. Jackson had written, "There appears to have prevailed, throughout the whole of this transaction [Erskine's], a fundamental mistake, which would suggest that his Majesty had proposed to propitiate the Government of the United States, to consent to the renewal of commercial intercourse; … as if, in any arrangement, his Majesty would condescend to barter objects of national policy and dignity for permission to trade with another country." The phrase was Canning's, and summarized precisely the jealous attitude towards its own prestige characteristic of the British policy of the day. It also defined exactly the theory upon which the foreign policy of the United States had been directed for eight years by the party still in power. Madison and Jefferson had both placed just this construction upon Erskine's tender. "The British Cabinet must have changed its course under a full conviction that an adjustment with this country had become essential."[306 - Writings of James Madison. Published by Order of Congress, 1865. Vol. ii. p. 439.] "Gallatin had a conversation with Turreau at his residence near Baltimore. He professes to be confident that his Government will consider England broken down, by the examples she has given in repealing her Orders."[307 - Ibid., p. 440. Turreau was the French minister.] "By our unyielding adherence to principle Great Britain has been forced into revocation."[308 - Works of Jefferson, vol. v. pp. 442-445.] Canning and his associates intuitively divined this inference, which after all was obvious enough. The feeling increased their discontent with Erskine, who had placed his country in the false light of receding under commercial pressure from America, and probably enough prepossessed them with the conviction that the American Government could not but have realized that Erskine was acting beyond his powers.

Wellesley, after his manner,—which was not Canning's,—asserted equally the superiority of the British Government to concession for the sake of such advantage. His Majesty regretted the Jackson episode, the more so that no opportunity had been given for him to interpose, which "was the usual course in such cases." Mr. Jackson had written positive assurances that it was not his purpose to give offence; to which the reply was apt, that in such matters it is not enough to intend, but to succeed in avoiding offence.[309 - "When Lord Wellesley's answer speaks of the offence imputed to Jackson, it does not say he gave no such cause of offence, but simply relied on his repeated asseverations that he did not mean to offend." Pinkney to Madison, Aug. 13, 1810. Wheaton's Life of Pinkney, p. 446.] "His Majesty has not marked, with any expression of his displeasure, the conduct of Mr. Jackson, who does not appear, on this occasion, to have committed any intentional offence against the Government of the United States." A chargé would be appointed to carry on the ordinary intercourse, but no intention was expressed of sending another minister. Persistence in this neglect soon became a further ground of bad feeling.

By its own limitations the Non-Intercourse Act was to expire at the end of the approaching spring session of the new Congress, but it was renewed by that body to the end of the winter session. During the recess the Jackson episode occurred, and was the first subject to engage attention on reassembling, November 27, 1809. After prolonged discussion in the lower house,[310 - Annals of Congress, 1809-10.] a joint resolution was passed approving the action of the Executive, and pledging to him the support of the nation. Despite a lucid exposition by Josiah Quincy, that the offence particularly attributed to the British minister was disproved by a reasonable attention to the construction of his sentences, the majority persisted in sustaining the party chief. That disposed of, the question of commercial restriction was again taken up.

It was conceded on all sides that Non-Intercourse had failed, and precisely in the manner predicted. On the south, Amelia Island,—at the mouth of the St. Mary's River, just outside the Florida boundary,—and on the north Halifax, and Canada in general, had become ports of deposit for American products, whence they were conveyed in British ships to Great Britain and her dependencies, to which the Act forbade American vessels to go. The effect was to give the carrying of American products to British shipping, in precise conformity with the astute provisions of the Navigation Acts. British markets were reached by a broken voyage, the long leg of which, from Amelia and Halifax to Europe and elsewhere, was taken by British navigation. It was stated that there were at a given moment one hundred British vessels at Amelia,[311 - Ibid., January 8, 1810, pp. 1164, 1234.] the shores of which were encumbered with American goods awaiting such transportation. The freight from the American ports to Amelia averaged a cent a pound, from Amelia to England eight cents;[312 - Ibid., p. 1234.] the latter amount going to British pockets, the former to Americans who were debarred from full transatlantic freight by the prohibitions of the Non-Intercourse Act. The absence of competition necessarily raised the prices obtainable by the British shipper, and this, together with the additional cost of transshipment and delays, attendant upon a broken voyage, fell upon the American agriculturist, whose goods commanded just so much less at their place of origin. The measure was even ingeniously malaprop, considered from the point of view of its purpose towards Great Britain, whether retaliatory or coercive. Upon France its effect was trivial, in any aspect. There was no French navigation, and the Orders in Council left little chance for American vessels to reach French ports.

All agreed that the Non-Intercourse Act must go; the difficulty was to find a substitute which should not confessedly abandon the whole system of commercial restrictions, idealized by the party in power, but from which it was being driven foot by foot. A first measure proposed was to institute a Navigation Act, borrowed in broad outline from that of Great Britain, but in operation applied only to that nation and France, in retaliation for their injurious edicts.[313 - Annals of Congress, 1809-10, pp. 754, 755.] Open intercourse with the whole world should be restored; but British and French merchant ships, as well as vessels of war, should be excluded from American harbors. British and French products could be imported only in vessels owned wholly by American citizens; and after April 15, 1810, could be introduced only by direct voyage from the place of origin. This was designed to prevent the continuance of trade by way of Amelia or Halifax. It was pointed out in debate, however, that French shipping practically did not exist, and that in the days of open trade, before the embargo, only about eight thousand tons of British shipping yearly entered American ports, whereas from three hundred thousand to four hundred thousand American tons visited Great Britain.[314 - Ibid., pp. 606, 607.] Should she, by a strict retaliation, resent this clumsy attempt at injuring her, the weight of the blow would fall on Americans. American ships would be excluded from British ports; the carrying trade to Amelia and Halifax would be resumed, to the detriment of American vessels by a competition which otherwise would not exist, and British manufactures would be introduced by smuggling, to the grievous loss of the revenue, as had been notoriously and abundantly the case under the Non-Intercourse Act. In truth, a purely commercial war with Great Britain was as injurious as a military war, and more hopeless.

The bill consequently failed in the Senate, though passed by the House. In its stead was adopted an Act which repealed that of Non-Intercourse, but prescribed that in case either Great Britain or France, before March 3, 1811, should so revoke or modify its edicts as that they should cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States, the President should declare the fact by proclamation; and if the other nation should not, within three months from the date of such proclamation, in like manner so modify or revoke its edicts, there should revive against it those sections of the Non-Intercourse Act which excluded its vessels from American ports, and forbade to American vessels importation from its ports, or of its goods from any part of the world whatsoever. The determination of the fact of revocation by either state was left to the sole judgment of the President, by whose approval the Act became law May 1, 1810.[315 - Annals of Congress, 1810, p. 2582.]

As Great Britain and France, by the Orders in Council and the Berlin and Milan Decrees, were then engaged in a commercial warfare, in which the object of each was to exhaust its rival, the effect of this Act was to tender the co-operation of the United States to whichever of them should embrace the offer. In terms, it was strictly impartial between the two. In fact, forasmuch as France could not prevent American intercourse with Great Britain, whereas Great Britain, in furtherance of her purposes, could and did prevent American trade with France, the latter had much more to gain; and particularly, if she should so word her revocation as to save her face, by not appearing the first to recede,—to show weakening,—as Great Britain had been made for the moment to seem by Erskine's arrangement. Should this ingenious diplomacy prove satisfactory to the President, yet fail so to convince Great Britain as to draw from her the recall of the Orders in Council, the United States, by the simple operation of the law itself, would become a party to the Emperor's Continental system, in its specific aim of reducing his opponent's strength.

At this very moment Napoleon was putting into effect against the United States one of those perverse and shameless interpretations of international relations, or actions, by which he not infrequently contrived to fill his pockets. The Non-Intercourse Act, passed March 3, 1809, had decreed forfeiture of any French or British ship, or goods, which should enter American waters after May 20, of the same year. The measure was duly communicated to the French Government, and no remonstrance had been made against a municipal regulation, which gave ample antecedent warning. There the matter rested until March 23, 1810, when the Emperor, on the ground of the Act, imposing these confiscations and forbidding American vessels to visit France, signed a retroactive decree that all vessels under the flag of the United States, which, since May 20, 1809, had entered ports of his empire, colonies, or of the countries occupied by his arms, should be seized and sold. Commissioners were sent to Holland to enforce there this edict, known as the Decree of Rambouillet, which was not actually published till May 14.[316 - For Armstrong's letter and the text of the Decree, see American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. iii. p. 384.] It took effect upon vessels which, during a twelvemonth previous, unwarned, had gone to France, or the other countries indicated. Immediately before it was signed, the American minister, Armstrong, had written to Champagny, Duke of Cadore, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, "Your Excellency knows that there are not less than one hundred American ships within his Majesty's possession, or that of his allies;" and he added that, from several sources of information, he felt warranted in believing that not a single French vessel had violated the Non-Intercourse law, and therefore none could have been seized.[317 - Armstrong to Champagny, March 10, 1810. American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. iii. p. 382.]

The law of May 1 was duly communicated to the two states concerned, by the United States ministers there resident. Great Britain was informed that not only the Orders in Council, but the blockade of May, 1806,[318 - American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. iii. p. 362.] were included among the edicts affecting American commerce, the repeal of which was expected, as injurious to that commerce. France was told that this demand would be made upon her rival;[319 - Ibid., p. 385.] but that it was also the purpose of the President not to give the law effect favorable to herself, by publishing a proclamation, if the late seizures of the property of citizens of the United States had been followed by absolute confiscation, and restoration were finally refused.[320 - Ibid.] This referred not to the Rambouillet Decree, as yet unknown in America, but to the previous seizures upon various pretexts, mentioned above by Armstrong. Ultimately this purpose was not adhered to; but the Emperor was attentive to the President's intimation that "by putting in force, agreeably to the terms of this statute, the non-intercourse against Great Britain, the very species of resistance would be made which France has constantly been representing as most efficacious."[321 - The Secretary of State to Armstrong, June 5, 1810. American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. iii. p. 385.] Thus, the co-operation of America to the Continental System was no longer asked, but offered.

The Emperor did not wait even for information by the usual official channels. By some unexplained delay, Armstrong's first knowledge was through a copy of the Gazette of the United States containing the Act, which he at once transmitted to Champagny, who replied August 5, 1810.[322 - American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. iii. p. 386.] His Majesty wished that the acts of the United States Government could be more promptly communicated; not till very lately had he heard of the Non-Intercourse,—a statement which Armstrong promptly denied, referring Champagny to the archives of his own department.[323 - Ibid., p. 387.] In view of the Act of May 1, the Emperor's decision was announced in a paragraph of the same letter, in the following words:

In this new state of things I am authorized to declare to you, Sir, that the Decrees of Berlin and Milan are revoked, and that after the first of November they will cease to have effect; it being understood that, in consequence of this declaration, the English shall revoke their Orders in Council, and renounce the new principles of blockade, which they have wished to establish; or that the United States, conformably to the Act which you have just communicated, shall cause their rights to be respected by the English.

Definition is proverbially difficult; and over this superficially simple definition of circumstances and conditions, under which the Decrees of Berlin and Milan stood revoked, arose a discussion concerning construction and meaning which resembled the wrangling of scholars over a corrupt text in an obscure classical author. Clear-headed men became hopelessly involved, as they wrestled with each others' interpretations; and the most got no farther than sticking to their first opinions, probably reached in the majority of cases by sheer prepossession. The American ministers to France and Great Britain both accepted the words as a distinct, indisputable, revocation; and Madison followed suit. These hasty conclusions are not very surprising; for there was personal triumph, dear to diplomatists as to other men, in seeing the repeal of the Decrees, or of the Orders, result from their efforts. It has been seen how much this factor entered into the feelings of Madison and Jefferson in the Erskine business, and to Armstrong the present turn was especially grateful, as he was about quitting his mission after several years buffeting against wind and tide. His sun seemed after all about to set in glory. He wrote to Pinkney, "I have the honor to inform you that his Majesty, the Emperor and King, has been pleased to revoke his Decrees of Berlin and Milan."[324 - American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. iii. p. 364.] Pinkney, to whom the recall of the British Orders offered the like laurels, was equally emphatic in his communication to Wellesley; adding, "I take for granted that the revocation of the British Orders in Council of January and November, 1807, April, 1809, and all other orders dependent upon, or analogous, or in execution of them, will follow of course."[325 - Ibid., p. 365.] The British Government demurred to the interpretation; but Madison accepted it, and on November 2 proclaimed it as a fact. In consequence, by the terms of the Act, non-intercourse would revive against Great Britain on February 2, 1811.

When Congress met, distrust on one side and assertion on the other gave rise to prolonged and acute discussion. Napoleon had surprised people so often, that no wonder need be felt at those who thought his words might bear a double meaning. The late President, who did not lack sagacity, had once written to his successor, "Bonaparte's policy is so crooked that it eludes conjecture. I fear his first object now is to dry up the sources of British prosperity, by excluding her manufactures from the Continent. He may fear that opening the ports of Europe to our vessels will open them to an inundation of British wares."[326 - Jefferson to Madison, April 27, 1809. Works, vol. v. p. 442.] This was exactly Bonaparte's dilemma, and suggested the point of view from which his every action ought to be scrutinized. Then there was the recent deception with Erskine, which, if it increased the doubts of some concerning the soundness of Madison's judgment, made it the more incumbent on others to show that on this occasion at least he had not been precipitate. Certainly, as regards the competency of the foreign official in either case, there was no comparison. A simple Minister Resident should produce particular powers or definite instructions, to guarantee his authority for concluding so important a modification of national policy as was accepted from Erskine; but by common usage the Minister of Foreign Affairs, at a national capital, is understood to speak for the Chief Executive. The statement of Champagny, at Paris, that he was "authorized" to make a specific declaration, could be accepted as the voice of Napoleon himself. The only question was, what did the voice signify?

In truth, explicit as Champagny's words sound, Napoleon's memoranda,[327 - Correspondance de Napoléon. Napoleon to Champagny, July 31, and August 2, 1810, vol. xx. p. 644, and vol. xxi. p. 1.] on which they were based, show a deliberate purpose to avoid a formal revocation, for reasons analogous to those suggested by Jefferson. Throughout he used "rapporter" instead of "révoquer." In the particular connection, the words are nearly synonymous; yet to the latter attaches a natural fitness and emphasis, the avoidance of which betrays the bias, perhaps unconscious, towards seeking escape from self-committal on the matter in hand. His phrases are more definite. July 31 he wrote, "After much reflection upon American affairs, I have decided that to withdraw (rapporter) my decrees of Berlin and Milan would conduce to nothing (n'aurait aucun effet); that it is better you should address a note to Mr. Armstrong, in which you will acquaint him that you have placed before me the details contained in the American gazette, … and since he assures us it may be regarded as official, he may depend (compter) that my decrees of Berlin and Milan will not receive execution (n'auront aucun effet) dating from November 1; and that he should consider them as withdrawn (rapportés) in consequence of the Act of the American Congress; provided," etc. "This," he concludes, "seems to me more suitable than a decree, which would cause disturbance and would not fulfil my aim. This method seems to me more conformable to my dignity and to the serious character of the business." The Decrees, as touching the United States alone, were to be quietly withdrawn from action, but not formally revoked. They were to be dormant, yet potential. As convenience might dictate, it would be open to say that they were revoked [in effect], or not revoked [in form]. The one might, and did, satisfy the United States; the other might not, and did not, content Great Britain, against whom exclusion from the continent remained in force. The two English-speaking peoples were set by the ears. August 2 the Emperor made a draft of the note to be sent to Armstrong. This Champagny copied almost verbatim in the declaration quoted; substituting, however, "révoquer" for "rapporter."

It would be intolerable to attempt to drag readers through the mazes of analysis, and of comparison with other papers, by which the parties to the discussion, ignorant of the above memoranda, sought to establish their respective views. One thing, however, should have been patent to all,—that, with a man so subtle and adroit as Napoleon, any step in apparent reversal of a decided and cherished policy should have been complete and unequivocal, both in form and in terms. The Berlin Decree was put forth with the utmost formality with which majesty and power could invest it; the asserted revocation, if apparently explicit, was simply a paragraph in ordinary diplomatic correspondence, stating that revocation had taken place. If so, where was it? An act which undoes another, particularly if an injury, must correspond fully in form to that which it claims to undo. A private insult may receive private apology; but no private expression can atone for public insult or public wrong. In the appreciation of Mr. Madison, in 1807, so grave an outrage as that of the "Chesapeake" called for a special envoy, to give adequate dignity to the proffered reparation. Yet his followers now would have form to be indifferent to substantial effect. Champagny's letter, it is true, was published in the official paper; but, besides being in form merely a diplomatic letter, it bore the signature of Champagny, whereas the decree bore that of Napoleon. The Decree of Rambouillet, then less than six months old, was clothed with the like sanction. Even Pinkney, usually so clear-headed, and in utterance incisive, suffered himself here to be misled. Does England find inadequate the "manner" of the French Revocation? he asked. "It is precisely that in which the orders of its own Government, establishing, modifying, or removing blockades, are usually proclaimed." But the Decree of Berlin was no mere proclamation of a blockade. It had been proclaimed, in the Emperor's own name, a fundamental law of the Empire, until England had abandoned certain lines of action. This was policy against policy, to which the blockade was incidental as a method. English blockades were announced and withdrawn under identical forms of circular letter; but when an Order in Council, as that of November, 1807, was modified, as in April, 1809, it was done by an Order in Council, not by a diplomatic letter. In short, Champagny's utterance was the declaration of a fact; but where was the fact itself?

Great Britain therefore refused to recognize the letter as a revocation, and could not be persuaded that it was by the opinion of the American authorities. Nor was the form alone inadequate; the terms were ambiguous, and lent themselves to a construction which would deprive her of all benefit from the alleged revocation. She had to look to her own battle, which reached its utmost intensity in this year 1810. Except the helpless Spanish and Portuguese insurgents, she had not an open friend in Europe; while Napoleon, freed from all opponents by the overthrow of Austria in 1809, had organized against Great Britain and her feeble allies the most gigantic display of force made in the peninsula since his own personal departure thence, nearly two years before. The United States had plain sailing; so far as the letter went, the Decrees were revoked, conditional on her executing the law of May 1. But Great Britain must renounce the "new" principles of blockade. What were these principles, pronounced new by the Decree? They were, that unfortified ports, commercial harbors, might be blockaded, as the United States a half century later strangled the Southern Confederacy. Such blockades were lawful then and long before. To yield this position would be to abandon rights upon which depended the political value of Great Britain's maritime supremacy; yet unless she did so the Berlin Decree remained in force against her. The Decree was universal in application, not limited to the United States commerce, towards which Champagny's letter undertook to relax it; and British commerce would remain excluded from neutral continental ports unless Great Britain not only withdrew the Orders in Council, but relinquished prescriptive rights upon which, in war, depended her position in the world.

In declining to repeal, Great Britain referred to her past record in proof of consistency. In the first communication of the Orders in Council, February 23, 1808,[328 - American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. iii. p. 209. Author's italics.] Erskine had written, "I am commanded by his Majesty especially to represent to the Government of the United States the earnest desire of his Majesty to see the commerce of the world restored once more to that freedom which is necessary for its prosperity, and his readiness to abandon the system which has been forced upon him, whenever the enemy shall retract the principles which have rendered it necessary." The British envoy in these sentences reproduced verbatim the instructions he had received,[329 - Canning to Erskine, Dec. 1, 1807, transmitting the Orders in Council of November 11. British Foreign Office MSS.] and the words italicized bar expressly the subsequent contention of the United States, that revocation by one party as to one nation, irrespective of the rest of the world, and that in practice only, not in principle, entitled the nation so favored to revocation by the other party. They exclude therefore, by all the formality of written words at a momentous instant, the singular assertion of the American Government, in 1811, that Great Britain had pledged herself to proceed "pari passu"[330 - Monroe to Foster, Oct. 1, 1811. American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. iii. p. 445. See also, more particularly, ibid., pp. 440, 441.] with France in the revocation of their respective acts. As far as can be ascertained, the origin of this confident assumption is to be found in letters of February 18 and 19, 1808,[331 - U.S. State Department MSS., and State Papers, vol. iii. p. 250.] from Madison, then Secretary of State, to Armstrong and Pinkney. In these he says that Erskine, in communicating the Orders,[332 - That is, verbally, before his formal letter of February 23.] expressed his Majesty's regrets, and "assurances that his Majesty would readily follow the example, in case the Berlin Decree should be rescinded, or would proceed pari passu with France in relaxing the rigor of their measures." By whichever of the colloquists the expression was used, the contrast between this report of an interview and the official letter quoted sufficiently shows the snare latent in conversations, and the superior necessity of relying upon written communications, to which informal talk only smooths the way. On the very day of Madison's writing to Armstrong, February 18, the Advocate General, who may be presumed to have understood the purposes of the Government, was repudiating such a construction in the House of Commons. "Even let it be granted that there had been a public assurance to America that she alone was to be excepted from the influence of the Berlin Decree, would that have been a sufficient ground for us not to look further to our own interest? What! Because France chooses to exempt America from her injurious decrees, are we to consent to their continuance?"[333 - Cobbett's Parliamentary Debates, vol. x. p. 669. A search through the correspondence of Canning and Erskine, as well as through the debates of Parliament upon the Orders in Council, January-April, 1808, reveals nothing confirmatory of the pari passu claim, put forth in Madison's letters quoted, and afterwards used by Monroe in his arguments with Foster. But in Canning's instructions to Jackson, July 1, 1809 (No. 3), appears a sentence which may throw some light on the apparent misunderstanding. "As to the willingness or ability of neutral nations to resist the Decrees of France, his Majesty has always professed … a disposition to relax or modify his measures of retaliation and self-defence in proportion as those of neutral, nations should come in aid of them and take their place." This would be action pari passu with a neutral; and if the same were expressed to Erskine, it is far from incredible, in view of his remarkable action of 1809, that he may have extended it verbally without authority to cover an act of France. My italics.] Where such a contradiction exists, to assert a pledge from a Government, and that two years after Erskine's singular performance of 1809, which led to his recall, is a curious example of the capacity of the American Administration, under Madison's guidance, for putting words into an opponent's mouth. In the present juncture, Wellesley replied[334 - Wellesley to Pinkney, Aug. 31, 1810. American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. iii. p. 366.] to Pinkney's claim for the revocation of the Orders in Council by quoting, and repeating, the assurance of Erskine's letter of February 23, 1808, given above.

Yet, unless the Orders in Council were repealed, Napoleon's concessions would not go far to relieve the United States. The vessels he would admit would be but the gleanings, after British cruisers had reaped the ocean field. Pinkney, therefore, had to be importunate in presenting the demands of his Government. Wellesley persisted in his method of procrastination. At last, on December 4, he wrote briefly to say that after careful inquiry he could find no authentic intelligence of the repeal, nor of the restoration of the commerce of neutral nations to its previous conditions. He invited, however, a fresh statement from Pinkney, who then, in a letter dated December 10,[335 - American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. iii. p. 376.] argued the case at length, under the three heads of the manner, or form, the terms, and the practical effect of the alleged repeal. Having completed the argument, he took incidental occasion to present the views of the United States concerning the whole system of the Orders in Council; animadverting severely, and emphasizing with liberal italics. The Orders went far beyond any intelligible standard of retaliation; but it soon appeared that neutrals might be permitted to traffic, if they would submit with a dependence truly colonial to carry on their trade through British ports, to pay such duties as the British Government might impose, and such charges as British agents might make. The modification of April 26, 1809, was one of appearance only. True, neutrals were no longer compelled to enter British ports; their prohibition from interdicted ports was nominally absolute; but it was known that by coming to Great Britain they could obtain a license to enter them, so that the effect was the same; and by forged papers this license system was so extended "that the commerce of England could advantageously find its way to those ports."[336 - The American flag was used in this way to cover British shipping. For instances see American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. iii. p. 342.]

Wellesley delayed reply till December 29.[337 - American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. iii. p. 408.] He regretted the intrusion of these closing remarks, which might tend to interfere with a conciliatory spirit, but without further comment on them addressed himself to the main question. His Government did not find the "notification" of the repeal of the French Decrees such as would justify it in recalling the Orders in Council. The United States having demanded the formal revocation of the blockade of May, 1806, as well as of the Orders in Council, he "must conclude, combining your requisition with that of the French Minister, that America demands the revocation of that order of blockade, as a practical instance of our renunciation of those principles of blockade which are condemned by the French Government." This inference seems overstrained; but certainly much greater substantial concession was required of Great Britain than of France. Wellesley intimated that this concert of action was partial—not neutral—between the two belligerents. "I trust that the justice of the American Government will not consider that France, by the repeal of her obnoxious decrees, under such a condition,[338 - Author's italics.] has placed the question in that state which can warrant America in enforcing the Non-Intercourse Act against Great Britain, and not against France." He reminded Pinkney of the situation in which the commerce of neutral nations had been placed by many recent acts of the French Government; and said that its system of violence and injustice required some precautions of defence on the part of Great Britain. In conclusion, his Majesty stood ready to repeal, when the French Decrees should be repealed without conditions injurious to the maritime rights and honor of the United Kingdom.

Unhappily for Pinkney's argument on the actuality of Napoleon's repeal, on the very day of his own writing, December 10, the American chargé[339 - Armstrong had sailed for the United States two months before.] in Paris, Jonathan Russell, was sending Champagny a remonstrance[340 - American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. iii. p. 391.] upon the seizure of an American vessel at Bordeaux, under the decrees of Berlin and Milan, on December 1,—a month after their asserted repeal. That the Director of Customs at a principal seaport should understand them to be in force, nearly four months after the publication of Champagny's letter in the "Moniteur," would certainly seem to imply some defect in customary form;[341 - Russell on November 17 wrote that he had reason to believe that the revocation of the Decrees had not been notified to the ministers charged with the execution of them. On December 4 he said that, as the ordinary practice in seizing a vessel was to hold her sequestered till the papers were examined in Paris, this might explain why the local Custom-House was not notified of the repeal. Russell to the Secretary of State, U.S. State Department MSS.] and the ensuing measures of the Government would indicate also something misleading in the terms. Russell told Champagny that, since November 1, the alleged day of repeal, this was the first case to which the Berlin and Milan Decrees could apply; and lo! to it they were applied. Yet, "to execute the Act of Congress against the English requires the previous revocation of the decrees." It was, indeed, ingeniously argued in Congress, by an able advocate of the Administration, that all the law required was the revocation in terms of the Decrees; their subsequent enforcement in act was immaterial.[342 - Langdon Cheves of South Carolina. Annals of Congress, 1810-11, pp. 885-887.] Such a solution, however, would scarcely content the American people. The French Government now took a step which clearly showed that the Decrees were still in force, technically, however honest its purpose to hold to the revocation, if the United States complied with the conditions. Instructions to the Council of Prizes,[343 - American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. iii. p. 393.] from the proper minister, directed that the vessel, and any others falling under the same category of entry after November 1, should "remain suspended" until after February 2, the period at which the United States should have fulfilled its obligation. Then they should be restored.

The general trend of argument, pro and con, with the subsequent events, probably shook the confidence of the Administration, and of its supporters in Congress, in the certainty of the revocation, which the President had authenticated by his proclamation. Were the fact unimpeachable, the law was clear; non-intercourse with Great Britain would go into effect February 2, without further action. But the doubts started were so plausible that it was certain any condemnation or enforcement under the law would be carried up to the highest court, to test whether the fact of revocation, upon which the operativeness of the statute turned, was legally established. Even should the court decline to review the act of the Executive, and accept the proclamation as sufficient evidence for its own decision, such feeble indorsement would be mortifying. A supplementary Act was therefore framed, doing away with the original, and then reviving it, as a new measure, against Great Britain alone. In presenting this, the member charged with its introduction said: "The Committee thought proper that in this case the legislature should step forward and decide; that it was not consistent with the responsibility they owed the community to turn over to judicial tribunals the decision of the question, whether the Non-Intercourse was in force or not."[344 - Annals of Congress, 1810-11, p. 990.] The matter was thus taken from the purview of the courts, and decided by a party vote. After an exhausting discussion, this bill passed at 4 A.M., February 28, 1811. It was approved by the President, March 2.