Change in British policy, 1805. French and decrees and Schouler's States, II, stances American trade flourished greatly, and this prosperity continued during the earlier years of the war against Napoleon, which began in 1804. This successful commerce had aroused the jealousy of English shipowners, and they implored the younger Pitt, who was now Prime Minister, to put an end to the favors granted America; and there were not wanting persons to argue that the action of the Americans was so beneficial to England's enemies as to be "war in disguise." Pitt decided to enforce the "Rule of War of 1756" (p. 277) to the letter, and thus put an end to all American trade to the West Indies. The British vessels made seizures right and left, and, as a matter of fact, Great Britain practically began war against the United States (1805). The conflict between Great Britain and Napoleon had now reached a point where it seemed impossible for the leading combatants to attack one another: Napoleon was supreme on the continent of Europe, and Britain was undisputed mistress of the seas. The belligerents thereupon endeavored to injure one another indirectly; but the real sufferers during this later time were the American shipowners, whose vessels were almost the only neutral ships on the ocean. 232. Decrees and Orders, 1806-10. - Napoleon began. the contest by closing the recently captured ports of Hamburg and Bremen to British commerce, thus cutting off a profitable trade between Great Britain and Germany. The British government retaliated by declaring a blockade of the coast of the continent from Brest to the Elbe (May 16,. 1806), which was enforced only between the Seine and Ostend. Napoleon replied to this by the issue of the Berlin Decree (November 21, 1806), declaring the British Islands to be "in a state of blockade." He also forbade all trade in British goods throughout the lands under French control, which soon included all of continental Europe except Norway, Sweden, and Turkey. Jay's treaty was about to expire by limitation, and it was 1806] The Impressment Controversy 323 Britain, 1806. found impossible to induce the British government to enter Treaty with into a new agreement on a reasonable basis. On December Great 1, 1806, Monroe and William Pinkney signed, on behalf of the United States, a new treaty, which contained many America, stipulations dishonorable to their country, among them at VII, 480. provision that the "Rule of War of 1756" would not be Jamis Mouror enforced in respect to goods upon which a two per cent ad valorem duty had been paid, on condition that no part of the duty had been returned as a "drawback." Neither impressment of American seamen nor indemnity for British seizures were mentioned. Furthermore, the American negotiators consented to receive a note to the effect that the British government would not consider itself bound by the provisions of the treaty unless the United States would resist the enforcement of the Berlin Decree! Jefferson sent the treaty back to Great Britain without formally laying it before the Senate. Early in the next year (January 7, 1807) the British government issued an Order in Council closing to neutral commerce the ports of the continent, save those limited regions that were not under French control. Later (November 11, 1807), another Order in Council authorized the seizure of any neutral vessel while on a voyage to any of the closed ports, unless such vessel had first touched at a British port. In the Milan Decree, Napoleon retorted by authorizing the seizure of any vessel that had entered a British port (December 17, 1807). As the British controlled the ocean and Napoleon the continent of Europe these decrees meant the destruction of the American carrying trade. With Great Britain, moreover, the United States had another cause of grievance, the controversy as to impressment. British Orders in Council, 1807. The American 233. The Impressment Controversy, 1793-1807. contest with France had hardly opened in 1793 ere British naval captains began stopping American vessels on the high naturalization papers. The "right of search." seas, and taking seamen from them for service in the As the war progressed, the British practically blockaded the more important American ports and removed seamen from outgoing vessels before they had lost sight of land. Two very important questions at once arose: the "right of search" and the value of naturalization papers. The American government denied the right of foreign cruisers to stop American vessels on the high seas for any purpose whatsoever except to ascertain their nationality. This position the United States maintained forever afterwards (pp. 413, 503). But Great Britain paid no heed to the American protests. The American system of naturalization was based on acts of Parliament: the first of these, which was passed in 1740, provided that foreign Protestants residing in the colonies for seven years and taking certain oaths should enjoy full civil rights in the colonies and many important privileges in Britain itself: the colonial assemblies, too, had passed acts for the naturalization of foreigners in the several colonies, oftentimes after a very brief period of residence, and the British government had not repealed or disallowed these acts. The naturalization system of the United States in 1807 was a reproduction of this colonial system, with the important exception that there was no longer a religious qualification. The British authorities, however, would not recognize it as in any way lessening the allegiance due from a British-born person to the British crown. There was undoubtedly some justification for the view British officers held as to naturalization; for in some states it was only necessary for a deserter 325 from an English ship to appear before the official in charge of the matter in order to receive naturalization papers. Under these circumstances, whole crews deserted, and many vessels were detained in port in consequence. The real cause of these desertions was to be found in the hardships of the British naval service, the lack of good food and quarters, the harshness of the discipline, and the low rate of wages paid to the sailors. These hardships were so great that the British seamen preferred to expatriate themselves rather than serve on British men-of-war. The British government, however, was not prepared to take this view and preferred to press British seamen wherever found. and the 1807. Schouler's States, II, 163; Maclay's 305-311. 234. The Outrage on the Chesapeake, 1807. - The mat- The ter reached a crisis on June 27, 1807, when the British ship Chesapeak Leopard fired on the American frigate Chesapeake, boarded Leopard, her, and removed from her decks three American citizens and one British subject. Jefferson at once issued a procla- United mation ordering all British war vessels out of the waters of the United States, and forbidding any intercourse with them or the furnishing them with any supplies. He also demanded redress, but attempted to couple with the Chesapeake outrage the whole question of impressment. The British authorities, on their part, disavowed the admiral by whose orders the outrage had been committed, but refused to give up impressment. While affairs were in this critical condition, the Order in Council of November, 1807, was issued. It is hardly conceivable that such a question should have been made the basis of party action, yet the Federalists denounced the President's proclamation as favoring the French, and the Northern merchants protested against anything being done that savored of hostility to Great Britain. 235. Jefferson's Embargo Policy, 1807, 1808. In April, 1806, at the time of the enforcement of the "Rule of War of 1756," Congress had passed an act forbidding the importation of goods from Great Britain or the British colonies after The embargo, 1807. Schouler's United States, II, 178-199. The Enforcement Act, 1808. November 15, of that year. This limit was further extended, and the prohibition did not go into effect until December, 1807. By that time, however, Jefferson deemed sterner measures necessary, and recommended an embargo. Congress at once fell in with the President's wishes and passed an act forbidding American vessels to leave the ports of the United States for foreign ports, and prohibiting foreign vessels to sail except with the cargo actually on board. Embargoes were no new thing in the history of the United States; they had hitherto been for limited periods and had been regarded as precursors of war, although no war had followed (p. 300). The policy of commercial restriction had been_often used with great effect, as at the time of the Stamp Act and the Townshend duties (p. 154). Able and far-seeing men, as Sir John Seeley and Edward Atkinson, have recognized the fact that commerce, so far from making for peace among mankind, has been the cause of many of the great struggles of modern days. Jefferson's idea was to revive the policy of the Revolutionary epoch and to put a pressure on Great Britain and France by restricting their dealings with the United States. But circumstances were changed: the American people were no longer united, as they had been in the earlier time; and it proved to be impossible to enforce the embargo policy in America. Even the Enforcement Act of 1808 proved of little value. This act required the owners of coasting vessels before the cargo was placed on board to give bonds to six times the value of the vessel and, if necessary, obliging them to land the goods in the United States. This requirement indicates one method of evasion of the Embargo Act, by vessels clearing for a coastwise port and then sailing to a foreign port. Another clause of the Enforcement Act was designed to prevent the evasion of the law by carrying goods overland to Canada or New Brunswick. This section authorized collectors of customs to seize goods "in any manner apparently on their way toward the territory of a foreign nation or the vicinity |