Assuming that the embargo was laid for the purpose of aiding the continental system, it appears, that it did little towards that purpose; and the whole evil fell upon American citizens. Mr. Armstrong writes from Paris; August 30th, 1808. "The embargo is a measure calculated above any "other to keep us whole, and keep us in peace; but beyond "this you must not count upon it. Here it is not felt; and "in England, (in the midst of the more interesting events of "the day,) it is forgotten."

Secondly, as to England; it was an interdiction of all commercial intercourse. But the injurious consequences to that country were entirely miscalculated. England supplied herself with cotton from other sources. The whole of the bread stuff, exported from the United States, was not more than one twentieth of the annual consumption of England, and not one half of this, probably, went to England. The West India Colonies turned their attention to their own resources. England found other markets for her products. If the embargo had continued as long as Mr. Jefferson intended it should, Europe would have forgotten, that there was such a country, on the globe, as the United States.

Thirdly, the wisdom of this measure is to be tested by its effects within our own limits, and on the adjoining provinces of the English.

First, it was an execution in effect, of the British proclamation of the 16th October, 1807, recalling seamen. Destitute of employment here, they found their way, through the British provinces, to their own country. It is not improbable, that many American sailors went in the same way, into the British service, in preference to starving at home.

Secondly, the export and import business was carried on through the British provinces, greatly to their advantage, while the coasting trade of the United States was conducted in wagons. Flour could not be water-borne from the south, without an official permit, by some agent thereto authorized by Mr. Jefferson.

Thirdly, the attempts to evade the embargo led to vindictive prosecutions, to the multiplication of spies and informers, and to an exercise of a tyranny of officers, great and small, which would hardly have been endured in Algiers, or Constantinople.

Fourthly, the effect was demoralizing. Smuggling had

hardly been known in these days; it now became common. It was not thought to be morally wrong, to evade a law which all, but Jeffersonians, knew to be oppressive and ruinous; and which the best informed men declared to be unconstitutional. It brought the administration of justice into contempt. Jury trials, on embargo bonds, became a mockery.

A law so palpably against common sense, so oppressive and ruinous in its consequences, and which a maritime community might justifiably think ought to be evaded if it could be, called for further enforcing legislation, which resolved itself, in practice, into downright tyranny. After the evils of the embargo had been endured more than a year, and the public distress became insufferable, the remedy, invented by Mr. Jefferson and his advisers, was a new law, commonly called the enforcing act. This was passed on the 9th of January, 1809.

At the session of the Massachusetts legislature in this month, petitions came in from various quarters, beseeching legislative interference. The community were exasperated to the highest degree. The manner in which these petitions were acted upon, by a federal legislature, may be some answer to Mr. Jefferson's calumnies on this party; and some refutation to his often-repeated tale of a northern confederacy to sever the Union.

At this time (January, 1809,) the alarming state of public affairs had called into the legislature of Massachusetts the ablest men in the state. Among them was the same Christopher Gore, whom Mr. Jefferson so pointedly mentions, as a monarchist and angloman; and the same Harrison Gray Otis, whom he mentions in the same connexion; and a majority of similar citizens in both branches.

The following words are extracted from a report, made on the petitions which the embargo laws caused to be presented :

The petitioners' complaints are, 1st. "The unnecessary, "impolitic, and unconstitutional interdiction of commerce, "by the several acts of Congress, falsely called embargo "laws. 2d. The apprehension that the nation is speedily "to be plunged into a war with Great Britain; and conse"quently entangled in a fatal alliance with France. 3d. "Some peculiarly oppressive and unjust provisions of the "last embargo act, passed on the 9th of January, 1809."

This report deserves the diligent study of citizens of a free republic, because it shows how easily a popular President and an obedient Congress can establish an absolute despotism in the forms of law. If Congress had enacted, that Thomas Jefferson may lawfully do anything that he may choose to do, to annihilate commerce, and to strip every citizen of his last shilling, who does not submit to his will, it would not have been a more real despotism.

A Jeffersonian, of some distinction, who was a member of the House at that time, but who has probably grown wiser since, exercised his patriotism by proposing a series of resolutions, one of which was in these words: "That "in case it shall appear to Congress, that all fair attempts "to remove said orders and decrees by negotiation shall "have been exhausted, and they shall find it necessary to assume any other attitude of resistance, it will be the duty "of the whole people of the Commonwealth of Massachu"setts to rally round the standard of their own nation and "its government, and to afford them their utmost support by all constitutional means in their power."

The meaning of the mover, both as to the nation in respect to whom an "attitude of resistance was to be assumed; and to that portion of the whole people, who were called on for their utmost support, was in no respect equivocal. His resolutions were committed to five, of whom the mover was one, and Mr. Gore the chairman. The report drawn by Mr. Gore is one of the masterly efforts of that day, and the mover of the resolutions gave an opportunity to the whole people to read an exposition of the true character and conduct of our national managers; and also to know what sort of citizens Mr. Jefferson's "anglomen and monarchists were.

Thus it appears, that more than three years before the war actually came, it was intended by one party, dreaded by the other; and that nothing was waited for but the favorable moment, which did not occur, as will hereafter be shown, until Napoleon was duly prepared for it.

The picture drawn by this report of the state of the country will be recognised as true and faithful, by all who can remember these days. The following is an extract from it:

"In this condition of unexampled prosperity at home,

"peace and consideration abroad, our present rulers were "called to the administration of public affairs; and what "has been the fruit of their labors? Let the following facts

"answer:

"Our agriculture is discouraged.

"The fisheries abandoned.

"Navigation forbidden.

"Our commerce at home restrained, if not annihilated. "Our commerce abroad cut off.

"Our navy sold, dismantled, or degraded to the service "of cutters or gun-boats.

"The revenue extinguished.

"The course of justice interrupted.

"The military power exalted above the civil; and by "setting up a standard of political faith unknown to the "constitution, the nation is weakened by internal animosi"ties and division, at the moment when it is unnecessarily "and improvidently exposed to war with Great Britain, "France, and Spain."

66

Such a report as this was a very sufficient reason with Mr. Jefferson, for regarding Mr. Gore as a monarchist and angloman."

LETTER LII.

NOVEMBER 6, 1833.

CALEB STRONG was Governor of Massachusetts from May 1800 to May 1807. Under the influence of Mr Jefferson, party contentions had become excessively bitter. There was not only the common struggle for power, from which even absolute despotisms are not exempt, and which is inseparable from all elective governments, but the politics and contentions in Europe were artfully intermingled with all the elections which occurred in the United States. The daily journals not only discussed qualifications for office, but descended to personalities and calumnies, which might induce one to suppose, that the Americans had been astute in selecting the worst men of their nation for public trust. It is in such paper warfare as in that of physical force;

"he

"is to be considered the author of the war, who causes the "first blow to be struck."

At the election in 1807, the candidates for Governor were Caleb Strong and James Sullivan; the latter was chosen in a severely contested election. He was elected the next year, and continued in office till his decease, which happened on the 10th Dec. 1808. The following notice of him is taken from the American Encyclopedia. The biographical sketches of that work are attributed to Mr. Robert Walsh.

66

66

James Sullivan, brother of the foregoing," (John Sullivan, an officer of the revolutionary war, and afterwards Governor of New Hampshire,) was born at Berwick, "Maine, April 22, 1744. He was educated entirely by his "father. The fracture of a limb in early life caused him "to turn his attention to legal pursuits, instead of embracing the military career, for which he had been destined. "After studying with his brother, General Sullivan, he was "admitted to the bar, and soon rose to celebrity. He was appointed King's attorney for the district in which he re"sided; but the prospects of advancement, which he might reasonably have entertained, did not prevent him from taking an early and decided part on the side of his coun"try, at the commencement of the revolutionary struggle. "Being a member of the provincial Congress in 1775, he was intrusted, together with two other gentlemen, with a "difficult commission to Ticonderoga, which was executed "in a very satisfactory manner. In the following year he "was appointed a Judge of the Supreme Court. In 1779 "-80, he was a member of the Convention, which framed "the constitution of the State. In February, 1782, he re"signed his judgeship, and returned to the bar. In 1783 "he was chosen member of Congress, and in the following year was one of the commissioners in settling the controversy between Massachusetts and New York, respecting "their claims to the western lands. He was repeatedly "elected representative of Boston, in the legislature. In "1787 he was member of the Executive Council and Judge "of Probate for Suffolk; and in 1790 was appointed At"torney General, in which office he continued till June, "1807, when he was elevated to the chief magistracy of "the Commonwealth. He was subsequently appointed by