SENATE.

The Embargo.

NOVEMBER, 1808.

force at that time, if then officially known to our Government, would not have been a sufficient cause for the embargo? And if they admit that the whole, combined, would have justified the measure, at the same time that they deny it to have been wise, they are constrained to acknowledge that it was at least fortunate. If the danrendered the measure proper, how can gentlemen seriously contend that while those dangers continue, it ought to be removed, without proposing some more efficient measure as a substitute?

Congress during the last and present session. I shall pass over the different decrees and orders of the two belligerents from 1805, until the Fall of 1807. I will pass over the affair of the Chesapeake, which called forth such a burst of indignation throughout this country. In December 1807, during the last session of Congress, the President was officially informed, that Bonaparte had deter-gers to which our commerce was then exposed mined to extend his decree of Berlin to American commerce, and although not officially notified, had every reason to believe that the French decree had been or would be retaliated by the British Orders of Council. The President thus warned of the dangers which threatened our commerce on the high seas, communicated the subject to Congress by a confidential message, recommending an embargo, to secure our vessels and seamen from capture. His advice was attended to; the measure was adopted. I expected, or at least hoped at that time, that this measure, besides securing our property, by its pressure on the belligerents, aided by a conciliatory course on the part of our Government, would have induced an amicable adjustment of differences with both or one of the belligerents, and thereby averted the calamities of war; that if it failed to produce this effect, it would at least afford us time to prepare to meet war, if inevitable. That our Administration has used every honorable means during the existence of this measure to settle our differences amicably with the belligerents, cannot be doubted by any one who has read the documents accompanying his recent message. After the Administration had pursued the course marked out by the commercial people, whose organs the gentlemen in the opposition appear to be on this occasion-after resisting the unjust pretensions of France and Great Britain-after the Government had laid an embargo and brought the nation to the eve of a war for the maintenance of our maritime rightswhat do we hear? We are told by a part of these same people, to the astonishment of all America, by solemn resolutions, which are already before the public, called the Essex resolutions, that we have no cause of war against Great Britain, and all her aggressions, if not justified, are excused; and our Government is gravely told to disgrace itself by receding from the ground it has taken. The gentleman from Connecticut, whose object seems to be rather to prove this measure wrong at first than what ought now to be done, tells us that the French decree of Berlin was not sufficient to justify this measure at the time it was adopted, because France had no naval force to give it effect on the high seas. If the Berlin decree was not sufficient to justify our embargo, upon what principle can it be pretended that it justified or even palliated the British Orders of Council? Although at the time the embargo was laid we had every reason to believe that the orders had issued, and which turned out to be the fact, yet I will admit, for the sake of argument, that the Berlin decree was not a sufficient ground for the embargo. Will gentlemen contend that the Berlin decree, British Orders of Council, and the French decree of Milan, all which were in

We are told, however, that the avowed object of this measure was to secure our property and seamen from capture, and that it was represented to the two belligerents as a measure of precaution, not as a measure of coercion or hostility. It is in its nature a precautionary measure, and it was the duty of the President to represent it in that light to foreign Governments; and whatever inconveniences may result from it, they cannot, by the law of nations, consider it as a measure of hostility. Yet the gentleman from-Connecticut tells us triumphantly that it has not only failed to produce any effect upon foreign nations, but that it never will operate as a measure of coercion. If the gentleman does not think this measure the best that can be devised, and that some other would better suit the present state of things, it is certainly his duty to propose it, and not to press a negative proposition calculated merely to censure, to find fault. I sincerely lament that this measure has not been productive of all the good effects anticipated. But, sir, although it has not, owing to numerous evasions and violations, together with other causes, induced foreign Powers to discontinue their depredations and restrictions upon our commerce, it does not necessarily fol low that, if persevered in and properly executed, it would not produce this effect. It is some consolation to the friends of this measure that it has been productive of some good. It has prevented a large portion of our property from falling into the hands of the belligerents, it has preserved peace and afforded us time to prepare for war, if this sad alternative must be resorted to. The gentleman from Connecticut and the gentleman from Massachusetts do not appear to agree as to the effects of this measure. The gentleman from Connecticut contends that it had no effect, while the gentleman from Massachusetts informs us that it had a very considerable effect on Great Britain in May or June last. If it has at any time had an effect upon either of the belligerents it proves at least that its advocates did not mis calculate as much as the gentleman from Con necticut would induce the world to believe. The gentlemen have cited a French exposé, to prove that the embargo is approved by that Government this document I have never seen, and cannot therefore, comment on it; and the gentleman might have proved by Mr. Canning's letter, tha Great Britain is not dissatisfied with it, if the sincerity of such declarations is to be confided in

The gentlemen have not explained their objec in referring to this document; was it to prove

that it did not operate on France, but did upon Great Britain, or that it had no effect upon either? If it was their design to prove by this document that France is reconciled to bear the inconveniences of this measure herself, on account of its more severe pressure upon her enemy, which may be the fact, it establishes the very reverse of what the gentlemen contend for. They have endeavored to prove that it has had no effect, nor will have any upon either. We have been told that we have been commanded by one Power to make war upon the other; that it has been the policy of both belligerents to draw us into the contest, is evident; and if our embargo has enabled us to resist their dictatorial mandates or insidious policy, it is fortunate for this country. It has been said that we had as well give up our ships to the enemy as let them rot in our harbors. I think very differently. I would rather have them sunk in the ocean than give them up to enrich our enemies. There is something of principle concerned in this. [Mr. LLOYD said he bad not expressed this idea; he had said that it affected the national wealth no more that the Vessels should be lost at sea, than that they should rot at the wharves.] Mr. P. said he considered the present contest, between us and the belligerents, not merely as a question of profit and loss; there was something of principle, honor, and independence at stake, and he was not disposed to calculate how much money would be gained by succumbing to a foreign Power. This is not the question with Congress or the nation. After the manner of the gentleman from Connecticut, who was fond of illustrating his ideas by very familiar examples, I will suppose that gentleman was in the habit of dealing largely with two merchants, A and B; that the intercourse between them was mutually advantageous; these merchants saddenly quarrel: A tells him he shall not trade with B, and that if he attempts it he will stop by force, and rob him of what he may be found carring to B. B tells him he shall not trade with A. under similar pains and penalties, unless he will first go to B and purchase of him a license deal with A; what would the gentleman do? I presume he would either chastise both for their solence and injustice, or, if that was not convelent, he would tell them I will have no interCourse with either of you. He would certainly Tesist their insolence and injustice by force, discontinue all intercourse with them, or submit to their terms. Would the gentleman in such a case calculate whether it would be his interest to shmit to the disgraceful conditions of B, who appened to be the stronger of the two, than bear the inconveniences resulting from a non-intercarse? Would the gentleman submit to disgraceful conditions for the pounds, shillings, and Peace he would make by a renewal of intercourse with them? I presume he would not. Great Britain and France, in defiance of all law, justice, and right, have, by their decrees and orders, terdicted our trade to a very great extent. Great Britain, however, will permit us to trade, Provided we will agree to pay her for the privi-|

SENATE.

lege. Now, sir, it appears to me that we must resist their decrees and orders by war, non-intercourse, or we must submit. Are we to be told that honor and independence are out of the question, and that we ought to submit to disgraceful conditions for the sake of trade, because we shall make money by it? Surely not.

However the gentleman from Connecticut and myself may differ in other respects, I concur with him in opinion that we have nothing to hope from the friendship or justice of the belligerents, and that the most efficient means of coercing them is by operating on their interest. If, then, his position be correct, that our only means of bringing Great Britain to terms is to affect her interest, and if it is true, as is generally believed, that our commerce is very advantageous to Great Britain, shall we not, by suspending that commerce, operate on her interest, and will not her interest induce her to do us justice, in order to renew it? The gentleman from Connecticut has told us that our embargo, with the aid of a nonimportation act, would produce no effect, because the West India planters can convert their sugarplantations into cornfields, and that therefore they could not be starved. Does the gentleman suppose any man of common sense ever believed that this system of starving, as it has been called, would destroy the belligerents? No, sir; it was expected to operate upon their interest-the only way in which the gentleman tells us they can be coerced. If, as the gentleman supposes, the West India planters will be compelled by our embargo to employ their capital and land in the culture of corn in order to subsist, will they not be materially injured by it? Will not the shipping interest engaged in carrying West India produce to Europe be injured, and will not the consumers in the mother country be injured by a rise in the prices of West India produce, independent of the injury to the Government on the score of revenue? If it had been the interest of the sugar planters to employ any portion of their capital in raising corn, it is wonderful they have never before made the discovery. The gentleman from Connecticut has also informed us that these islands can be supplied from other countries. If other countries can supply the West Indies with those articles which they have heretofore received from the United States, I would thank the gentleman to inform us why those other countries have not rivalled us in this market; for it is not a new one; it has been known a great length of time. Those countries from which these islands can be supplied must have been, I presume, employed heretofore in more lucrative pursuits; and, according to a position advanced by the gentleman himself on the subject of manufactures, those other countries could not be induced to abandon suddenly their present pursuits, in order to supply the West India market. If Great Britain can procure these supplies elsewhere, it cannot be her interest to do so, because it is not presumable that she can procure them on as good terms as from the United States.

The gentleman has informed us that Great

SENATE.

The Embargo.

NOVEMBER, 1808.

Britain can be supplied with cotton from the "It has been said that, by embarking in the colony East Indies and other countries. I will ask the trade of either of the belligerents, neutral nations, in gentleman if Great Britain can procure this ar- some sort, interpose in the war, since they assist and ticle from the East Indies and other countries in serve the belligerent, in whose trade they so embark. sufficient quantity, and on as good terms as from It is a sufficient answer to this observation, that the the United States? If she cannot, which I sup- same course of reasoning would prove that neutrals pose to be the case, she must feel our embargo in ought to discontinue all trade whatsoever with the parher manufactures-one of the vital sources of trade assists and serves the belligerent with whom it is ties at war. A continuance of their accustomed peace her strength and prosperity. We are told that a continued; and if this effect were sufficient to make a non-importation act would have no effect, because trade unneutral and illegal, the best established and it could not be enforced; smuggling would be most useful traffic would, of course, become so. But carried on to a very great extent. That a non- Great Britain supplies us with another answer to this importation act would, like all other laws, be par- notion, that our interference in the trade of the colotially violated, was to be expected. Every law nies of her enemies is unlawful, because they are benis violated, but with due vigilance such a meas- efited by it. It is known that the same trade is, and ure could be enforced to a very great extent. long has been, carried on by British subjects, and your This measure would not be efficient, says the memorialists feel themselves bound to state that, accordgentleman, because Great Britain will find a mar-ing to authentic information lately received, the Govket for her manufactures in New Spain and ernment of Great Britain does, at this moment, grant South America. I will ask the gentlemen, whe-licenses to neutral vessels, taking in a proportion of ther South America has not been supplied hereto- their cargoes there, to proceed on trading voyages to fore with British manufactures to a considerable the colonies of Spain, from which she would exclude extent, and does the gentleman seriously believe that she would find a market in that country for the immense quantity of her manufactures hitherto consumed in the United States?

us, upon the condition, that the return cargoes shall be carried to Great Britain to swell the gains of her merchants, and to give her a monopoly of the commerce of the world. This great belligerent right, then, upon which so much has been supposed to depend, hostile instrument, wielded by a warlike State, by which her enemies are to be wounded, or their colonies subdued, but as the selfish means of commercial aggrandizement, to the impoverishment and ruin of her friends; as an engine by which Great Britain is to be lifted up to a vast height of prosperity, and the trade of neutrals crippled, and crushed, and destroyed."

sinks into an article of barter. It is used, not as a

According to the course of reasoning adopted by the gentleman from Connecticut, the object of Great Britain in blockading the Continent is not to starve it; it must therefore be to secure to herwith the Continental Powers. In such a state of self the benefit of all the commerce carried on

licenses of foreign Governments were making their fortunes, the honest Americans, who would not consent to degrade their country by navigating the ocean under the protection of any Government but their own, would be plundered by both belligerents. If we are to consider the bel

Although the gentleman has not, in his resolution to repeal the embargo, proposed a substitute, he intimated in his argument that we ought to arm our commerce against all nations. I am not prepared to say that I will adhere to this embargo system if a better can be devised; but before I embrace a substitute, I must be informed how it is to operate; the gentleman must therefore excuse me for propounding a few questions to him in relation to this measure. I wish to be informed, would not such a measure be war with France and Great Britain, or should we not by such a measure put it in the power of the commercial interest to embroil us with which nation they pleased? Is it probable that our merchants would run the risk of fighting their way to the Conti-things, while those who were trading under the neut of Europe, with loaded vessels, in defiance of the British navy? Is it not more probable that Great Britain would have agents in this country to sell licenses to our merchants to trade to the Continent, and would not our merchants for their own security secretly purchase and trade under those licenses? If the object of Great Britain be a commercial monopoly, and we remove our embargo, would it not be in the power of the British merchants, by a secret understanding with, and the connivance of their Government, by agents and secret partners in the United States, to carry on the very trade to the Continent which Great Britain interdicts to us? I have been led to make these inquiries by reading the memorial of the merchants of Baltimore, presented to the Government in 1806, respecting neutral trade, and which was signed by men of all parties, in which it was positively charged that the object of Great Britain in harassing our trade, was to cripple American commerce and promote her own, and that she granted licenses to neutrals to carry on the trade which she interdicted. I will

read it:

gerent nations as pirates, no longer bound by those principles of public law to which civilized nations have hitherto subscribed, and are prepared to purchase our rights on the seas, let us do it as a nation, by paying them a sum in gross. and thereby place our citizens on equal ground. We are told that we can carry on a considerable commerce with countries not within the scope of the decrees or orders of the belligerents. This argument is specious and captivating, let us examine it, for I feel as much solicitude as the gentlemen in the opposition to remove this embargo whenever it can be done with propriety; on this, as well as on the subject of an armed commerce, the gentleman will pardon me for requesting information. If we remove our embargo as to Portugal and other places to which our trade is not interdicted, and by a law declare that our cit

izens shall trade only to those countries permitted by the belligerents, would not that be submission to their orders and decrees; and if we open our ports, and restrict our commerce to those couniries, could we ever afterwards hope for a relaxation of the British Orders of Council? Would not Great Britain have every inducement to perpetuate such a state of things, which would afford to her the benefits of our commerce without its inconveniences?

The gentleman from Connecticut has informed us that the object of the Administration, in adopting the present system, is to put down commerce and promote manufactures.

SENATE.

our brethren of other States in defence of our national rights and independence.

It appears to me, sir, that the commercial people ought to be the last to complain. Our Government has imposed discriminating tonnage duties, to give our own vessels an advantage in our own ports over foreigners. We have remitted the duties on foreign articles imported into the United States, intended for exportation. Our Government has evinced every disposition to foster commerce and maintain our maritime rights. We are told that the people are opposed to this measure. To the voice of a free people I shall always bow with reverence. But, sir, it If the Administration has any concealed mo- ought to be remembered that in this country the tive for this measure, I am a stranger to it. It will of the majority must prevail; it is a fundais well known that it has been a favorite object mental principle of our Government, and if we with the present Administration to pay the pub- are to judge from recent events, a great majority Le debt, and it would be strange indeed that it of the nation are in favor of this measure. We should pursue a system which cuts off our only are informed, and it has been intimated on this source of revenue. This conjecture of the gen- floor, that rebellion in the Eastern Staies will be tleman is too improbable to require a serious ref- the probable consequence of perseverance in this utation. On the policy of promoting manufac- measure. Are we to be driven from the course tures I shall make but a few remarks, as it will dictated by the public interest by alarms of this hereafter be a subject of distinct consideration. I sort? Are we to be told by a minority that we have supposed that it would be sound policy in must recede from the ground we have taken; that this Government to diminish, in some degree, the we must admit the Government has not sufficient inducements now held out to our citizens to em- energy to enforce its authority, or that they will bark in foreign commerce, and induce them to rebel? Will gentlemen inform us who they are invest their money in the interior; the increase that are prepared to erect the standard of rebelof manufactures would lessen our dependence on lion against their own Government on the very foreign nations, and render us more dependent on graves of the brave Bostonians who first raised each other. There would be more intercourse the standard of American independence? They between the people of the different States, which must be some new people who have obtruded would tend to nationalize us, and give more themselves upon our shores; they cannot be Amerstrength and permanency to the American Union. icans; I will not think so unworthily of my To what extent this policy should be carried, I countrymen. I believe the American people are am not now prepared to say. A distinction has generally attached to their Government; I trust been taken between native and foreign commerce, it is but the clamor of the moment, which will or what is more commonly called the carrying cease the moment the will of the Government trade. The policy of encouraging our citizens shall be decisively and constitutionally expressed. to participate in the carrying trade is one thing, It has been frequently said that Great Britain is our maritime rights is another. The gentlemen fighting for the liberties of the world; that she in the opposition complain that this measure bears is the only barrier between France and universal peculiarly hard on the commercial States. On dominion, and therefore that our weight ought to the subject of commerce, as all others of national be thrown into the scale of England, to assist cern, I am disposed to consider the United her in this mighty conflict. If our friendship is States as an integer, and to forget the lines of par- necessary to England, ought she not to entitle by which we are separated into different herself to it, at least to do us justice and respect States and districts, for the purpose of internal our rights? Shall we submit to insults and indiggovernment; but as the gentleman have con- nities from Great Britain to induce her to save rasted the commercial with the agricultural us from subjugation by France? Shall we adStates, I am willing to meet them. I had thought mit for a moment that we cannot maintain our at this measure, if its pressure was greater independence? The gentlemen in the opposion one part of the country than another, oper- tion have protested against submission; they have ated more severely upon the growers of cotton not declared themselves for war; if they are for an any other part of the nation, and they ought, it, I hope they will avow it; they have proposed induenced by pecuniary considerations, to be no substitute. I am not prepared to say how e first to complain. The people I represent are long good policy will justify a continuance of the agricultural people, and I ask the gentleman present system; but, sir, I am ready to declare of what importance it is to them whether their that I will adhere to it until a better can be subproduce is carried in foreign or American ves-stituted. If it be true, as the gentleman from For what are the agricultural people now Connecticut has informed us, that the most effiring, but to maintain our maritime rights. cient means of coercing Great Britain, is to afwe are willing to discard all calculations of fect her interest, and if it be true that our embarprofit or loss, and make a common cause with go will compel the West India planters to con