On 3 January 1810 President James Madison wrote
this letter to the Congress of the United States:
The Act Authorizing a Detachment of
one hundred thousand men from the
Militia will expire on the 30th of March next.
Its early revival is recommended in order that
timely steps may be taken for arrangements
such as the act contemplated.
Without interfering with the modifications rendered
necessary by the defects, or the inefficacy of the laws
restrictive of commerce and navigation, or with the
policy of disallowing to foreign Armed Vessels, the use
of our waters; it falls within my duty to recommend also,
that in addition to the precautionary measure authorized
by that Act & to the regular troops for completing the
legal establishment of which enlistments are renewed,
every necessary provision may be made for a Volunteer
force of twenty thousand men to be enlisted for a short
period and held in a state of Organization and readiness
for actual service at the shortest warning.
I submit to the consideration of Congress, moreover,
the expediency of such a classification & organization
of the Militia, as will best ensure prompt & successive
aids from that source adequate to emergencies,
which may call for them.
It will rest with them also, to determine how far,
further provision may be expedient, for putting
into Actual service, if necessary, any part of
the Naval Armament not now employed.
At a period presenting features in the conduct of foreign
Powers towards the United States, which impose on them
the necessity of precautionary measures involving expense,
it is a happy consideration that such is the solid state of the
public credit, that reliance may be justly placed on any
legal provision that may be made for resorting to it in
a convenient form and to an adequate amount.1
The wealthy Quaker George Logan, a Republican who had gone to France
in 1798 to negotiate peace and provoked the Logan Act of 1799
forbidding private citizens from engaging in international diplomacy,
once again went to Europe to try to avert war.
Madison asked the former Senator Logan to take a copy of a letter
he wrote to Logan and a note to William Pinkney.
Logan wrote this letter to President Madison on 10 January 1810:
As a citizen of the United States, I have
for several years viewed with considerable
anxiety the future destinies of my country.
Every reflecting and candid mind must be sensible
of the weakness of a Government deriving its power
from popular opinion rather than from physical force.
Such being the situation of the United States:
would it not be sound policy in our Government
not merely to act with strict justice, but with liberality,
and even forbearance towards other nations?
During the federal administration under Mr. Adams,
a desperate faction was anxious to involve
our country in a war with France.
The people viewing the calamities of war with horror,
entrusted the fate of their country in the hands of Men
who professed maxims of peace as the best policy to
promote the happiness and prosperity of the United States.
This desirable situation of our Country is like to be
jeopardized by our republican administration, giving up
their sound judgment founded on deliberate reflection to
the temporary feelings of popular resentment, roused
into energy by the clamor of unprincipled demagogues.
The superficial legal education of too many of our
young Men in Congress, and their habits of quibble
and sophistry in our inferior courts, so debase their minds,
as to extinguish that generosity of sentiment and candor,
necessary in the character of a national legislator.
Our demands on Spain, respecting French spoliations
out of Spanish ports; and on account of our claim to
West Florida have been long since declared by the
Emperor of France as totally without foundation.
And we have reason to believe they never will be
granted whether we have to negotiate for them
with the Spanish or with the French Government.
Our prospects with Great Britain, owing to the inflamed
state of the public mind, is more serious—and yet I do not
despair; if either or both Nations would substitute a just and
magnanimous policy to suspicion, jealousy and cupidity.
In the present awful crisis of Europe with the acts
and the ambitious views of Bonaparte before us:
no man in his senses can doubt of the necessity
of the United States preserving peace with Britain.
I was not satisfied with the rejection of Monroe’s treaty
on account of its not having an article, stipulating
generally for the protection under the American
mercantile flag of French property and British deserters.
The two federal administrations gave up those points
as consistent with the law of nations.
The first universally acknowledged by
the best writers on the law of nations.
The latter, although not particularly expressed, yet
consistent with the spirit and intent of that law, as founded
on the immutable principle of doing unto others, as you
would expect others to do unto you, is equally binding.
Those great national laws, which regard the great
republic of mankind, cannot justify acts as may
promote wickedness & lessen the general confidence
and security in which all have an equal interest;
and which all are therefore bound to maintain.
For this reason no nation has a right to erect a
sanctuary for fugitives or give protection to such
as have forfeited their lives by crimes against the
laws of common morality and justice, equally
acknowledged by all nations; because none can without
infraction of the universal league of social beings, incite by
prospects of impunity and safety, those practices in another
Dominion, which they themselves punish in their own.
According to this fundamental law of nations, What right
has the United States to protect a deserter from the
service of a foreign nation while in the practice of
punishing its own citizens guilty of a similar offense?
My heart mourns on account of the
political insanity of my Country—
Make use of your power and your influence,
as first magistrate of the United States to arrest
the progress of the destruction of your country—
A war with Britain at once unites us as an ally
to Bonaparte and will dissolve the union—
Arouse my friend; suffer your superior
understanding and patriotism to prevail.
Banish from our councils that irritability of temper
& false honor which has tended to widen the breach.
When I had the pleasure of conversing with you lately
at Washington, you mentioned to me that you had recently
given assurances to the British Government of the desire
of the United States to preserve peace between the two
countries; and that you were willing to renew negotiations
for that purpose in Washington or in London.
Confirm this declaration by immediately sending
two or three commissioners of the most respectable
characters to London for the express purpose of
concluding a treaty of friendship & commerce,
equally necessary and beneficial to both countries.
You have a precedent in the mission
of Mr. Jay by General Washington.
And a yet stronger one in the last mission
by Mr. Adams to France—an act of magnanimity
which obliterates many of his political blunders.2
The United States Attorney General Caesar A. Rodney on 16 January 1810
wrote this long letter to President Madison about the current situation on maritime law:
The critical situation of our country necessarily engages
the attention of every thinking man in the community.
It must more particularly occupy the minds of those
to whom the nation has confided any share in the
direction & management of its political concerns.
The Chief-magistrate of the Union must feel in a pre-
eminent degree for the public welfare from the peculiar
responsibility attached to his elevated situation; and none
can experience more anxious solicitude than yourself.
The uniform patriotism that has animated your conduct,
combined with the prudence firmness & wisdom, which
have directed your steps in the path of administration,
afford an ample pledge to the country that every
care will be taken of its interests & its honor.
We live in an age without precedent in history.
A solitary neutral, amid a warring world.
All the rules of virtue & morality, which bound
together the great families of mankind are violated
with impunity, as caprice, interest, or ambition direct.
The celebrated writers who have civilized the human race;
who have taught man the laws of his nature; & have
unfolded to sovereigns the laws by which the conduct
of nations should be governed, are no longer respected.
Their voice is not heard.
We may truly say with Cicero, “Inter arma silent leges.”
But the arbitrary orders & decrees of the belligerents are
resounded from the cannon’s mouth in the tone of thunder.
Grotius & Puffendorf, Vattel & Burlamaqui
may be laid on the shelf.
They must give place to the novel codes daily published
according to the modern method of promulgation.
The subject presents a gloomy
prospect to the contemplative mind.
It is in this unexampled state of things,
that we are struggling to preserve the moral
rules of action between nations against the
oppressive systems of the contending powers.
The task is indeed Herculean.
We have sincerely endeavored without partiality or
prejudice to support the legitimate rights of Neutrals,
when all the great naval powers were parties to the war.
Perhaps, if they were at peace, they would suffer
the exercise of no belligerent rights on the ocean.
In their present situation they practice exactly the reverse.
They allow no rights of neutrality.
When I reflect on the magnitude & difficulty of the
undertaking, I lament that the wise measure,
recommended by your illustrious predecessor, had not
been continued until the desired effect was produced.
I am conscious it would have accomplished
the purpose if rigidly enforced.
The embargo was the anchor of hope in such
a tempest as the world never before witnessed,
and in which it seems to be the will of Providence
that human affairs should now fluctuate.
But we were driven from our safe moorings
before the storm had subsided.
We have been of course buffeted by the waves,
& the question presents itself what is best to be done?
In this perilous moment every man
should endeavor to preserve the bark.
If ever there was a period, which called for unanimity,
it is emphatically the present.
Every motive of honor, patriotism & duty,
conspire to urge all good men to rally round
the common standard of the government.
The crisis ought to efface the distinction of party,
& those who on some points have been opposed
to the administration should make a common
cause against a common foe.
Among the uniform friends of administration
whatever little differences of opinion may
have arisen from the complicated state of
affairs should be reconciled or forgotten.
No personal jealousies should be permitted
to ruffle the stream of their patriotism.
All reasonable sacrifices ought to be made on the
altar of accommodation & at the shrine of the Union.
By these means the nation would be resolved
into a most formidable mass of strength.
Possessing these sentiments, I must acknowledge
that I have been disappointed by the conduct lately
manifested by the Federalists in Congress:
And I lament to see the business of the Yazoo revived,
& more especially at such an eventful moment.
I fear it will prove a torch of discord:
That it will spread a flame not easily extinguished.
England & France have both played a
foolish game in relation to this country.
They have acted as if they were blind.
Either of them by withdrawing their arbitrary orders or
decrees might have involved us in a war with the other.
And yet neither of them have been willing to take the
first step lest the other might follow in the track.
Perhaps it has been the best course
they could have pursued for us.
It may have, thus long, preserved us
from the calamities of war.
From both nations we have received
sufficient cause for commencing hostilities.
We have thus far avoided them with either
by the pacific line of conduct adopted.
Can we stand on this course any longer with safety?
If we cannot, however painful or reluctant the duty,
we must yield to the only alternative.
It is not a contest for place, but an arduous
conflict for those rights which God & nature
have given an Independent nation.
We should be actuated by no narrow or selfish motives in
the consideration and decision of this momentous question.
If peace can only be preserved by the abandonment
of national character, the path is very plain.
I am not so ambitious of a contest,
as to rush into war on a mere punctilio,
more especially in the present state of the world.
When every day may produce some unexpected event,
and when no human experience can
furnish a chart by which to steer.
A general peace may take place during this winter.
It is true, such a result is not probable,
but things cannot in this age be calculated
by the common arithmetic of human events.
If this should happen, the wrongs of neutrals would cease.
The war I apprehend will not, nay,
cannot last many years longer.
May not our embarking in this late stage on the
troubled ocean have a tendency to prolong it?
May we not in case of peace be left in the lurch &
may not war produce new trammels by alliance or treaty?
At all events will it not have a demoralizing effect
on the country & be productive of injury to our
Republican institutions systems, habits & manners?
I cannot subscribe to the doctrine of Lord Kaims
& Bacon that a state of peace is unnatural to men,
& that it renders them beasts of burden.
But with all my prepossessions in favor of peace
the insults added to the injuries we have sustained
afford, I must acknowledge, independent of the
novel state of the world an abundant cause of war.
I feel no partialities for England or France.
The Emperor & the King in my view
are equal enemies to free government.
There was a period when we all felt the cause of
Frenchmen as our own, but that has long since passed by.
If we unsheathe the sword, I am
most decidedly for selecting our foe.
We have at least a choice of enemies.
The idea of going to war at once with both powers
(or in other language with all the world)
has ever appeared to my mind preposterous.
The opinion sometimes expressed that
one or the other would soon make peace with us,
might prove woefully incorrect.
At all events it would not afford so fair an opportunity,
as if we were not to wage war with all.
We should not add any real strength
to our cause by such a policy.
Rely on it, those among our opposers who
advocate this course from a nice refined sense
of punctilious scruples have sense enough to discern,
the embarrassment which must necessarily ensue.
England is our old & inveterate enemy.
She has done us more injury.
The impressment of our seamen alone is
worse than all we have sustained from France.
She is vulnerable by land & water.
Her provinces we can conquer & the remnant of her
commerce will become a prey to our privateers.
In the last war before our alliance with France,
Marshall states that we had raised insurance higher
than when England was at War with both France & Spain,
by the active enterprising spirit of our privateers-men.
On this fleet I would rely, much more than our navy.
I have heard seafaring men assert that the “Fair American”
& the “Holker” did more injury to the British commerce
in our last war than all our thirteen frigates,
the principal part of which, were soon captured.
It is true the British navy has been greatly increased since
that period, & her supremacy on the ocean established.
But our privateers would be found on experiment,
to have increased in a much greater proportion
than the English Navy.
I have little doubt, but we could get money enough
at home, but if we do not declare war against Europe,
I presume we may borrow foreign capital
& leave our domestic to be applied to
manufactures, privateers & other purposes.
The experienced mind of Mr. Gallatin can furnish
without difficulty sufficient resources for prosecuting a war
from the ample stores our own country affords.
I would enter into no “entangling alliance” with France,
but rely on the fact of our being actually at war with
England to produce in Europe all the beneficial
effects that could reasonably be expected.
The reign of British influence will
soon be over in this country.
The cause will cease, & the effect will of course.
I consider England rapidly on the decline
& contemplate her fall as not far distant.
She will not suffer our trade to expand its wings & take its
accustomed flight, because we interfere with her commerce.
This however will render us less able
to purchase her manufactures.
We have been as busy as bees collecting honey
from every coast and clime for her hive.
By her mandate we are confined to our own shores.
The capital heretofore employed in trade will be invested
in manufactories of various kinds in this country.
England is doing by this conduct more to establish
manufactures than we could do ourselves.
Her excise & her export duties
she has strained to the highest pitch.
In a few years (as they cannot reduce,
but must increase them) in reference to her more
important articles, they must amount to a prohibition.
Already they furnish sufficient inducements
to manufacture for ourselves.
As things are, England has little or no interest
in the question relative to the Colonial trade;
yet she will not acquiesce in the circuitous commerce
between the colony & the mother country.
The period is not favorable for
the commencement of a war.
The ocean must be covered with our vessels.
The East India & Brazil trade must be greatly exposed,
unless advice boats were dispatched
immediately on the rupture with Jackson.
From the time Canning came into power I have suspected,
that such was their infatuated policy,
they really desired war with us,
but did not like to begin it themselves.
They wished to throw the odium on us.
It is possible they may commence hostilities when
they receive Jackson’s budget & strike without notice.
They never could have a fairer opportunity.
They have treacherously seduced our commerce
abroad & may now seize on the prey.
Our exposed ports ought to be promptly attended to.
The winter season will protect many.
But New York & New Orleans require particular attention.
If England should attack us, it will relieve us
from all difficulties about commencing war.
I am much pleased with the treatment
Jackson received from the government,
& highly gratified with the able decorous and
dignified style of the correspondence with him.
The admirable view which Mr. Giles has taken
of this subject for popular instruction & conversion
cannot be excelled or equaled.
His speech should be distributed all over the country
with every almanack for the new year.
The sentiments expressed by the venerable Dickenson
in a letter addressed to me & dated the 16th of November
1807 are not inapplicable to the present times.
“The infatuated policy of Britain has placed her
in such a position, that she seems to think her
safety depends on hostility against the world.
Perhaps it does.
If she is to fall in the contest, she will go down with
a tremendous crash and dreadful ruin to many others—
I turn my eyes from the object witness as I am
for more than fifty years of British folly.
“At present let us prepare as well & as quickly
as we can against the most imminent dangers.
We ought among other things to have
15 or 20 Gun boats in the Delaware.”
The situation of England must be
daily becoming more desperate.
Previously to the French war her funds were very high.
After embarking in a contest which appears likely to prove
fatal to herself, but may prove fatal to the liberties of all
mankind, her funds experienced a depression in the year
1799 greater than at any period during the American war.
They have, it is true, since recovered from a collapse which
reduced them to about one half the value they possessed
before they plunged into the war with France, but the
paroxysm may soon return, when their laws can no longer
make Bank paper equal to gold & silver coin.
In proportion as the annual sums for their expenses
increase, the ability & resources may diminish.
With a blind old King more than seventy years of age,
the heir apparent near Fifty with a broken constitution
& a little girl of about fourteen the next in succession,
the British nation must have, under the present
exigences, a hopeful prospect.
When we look round to Buonaparte, who may be
styled not merely the Colossus of Europe, but of the world,
& who is indebted to England for an extent of power &
empire, not only unequalled but unrivalled since the
creation of man, we behold a different order of things.
Whether we contemplate his character as a warrior
or stateman, he has displayed equal talents.
He does everything at the proper time, and
fortune seems to crown all his plans with success.
What were the conquests of Alexander
compared with those he has achieved?
What the extent of Roman Empire in its most expanded
State, or that of his predecessor Charlemagne
contrasted with wide limits or range of Buonaparte?
His ally the Emperor of all the Russias possesses
dominions more extensive than those of
Charlemagne or than the Empire of Rome.
And Russia is his satellite.
His vassal King’s & his humbled Emperor’s territories,
added to those governed immediately in his own name,
must furnish him with strength & resources,
the extent of which it would be difficult to calculate.
If this gigantic power, as some of our wise men have
predicted, Cyclops like, intends the fate of Ulysses for us,
I trust like Ulysses we shall escape by having the sea
between us & by our own wisdom & strength.
Not to have a war with England or France is
a most desirable object, if it can be accomplished
consistently with those principles which ought to
govern an independent & enlightened nation.
I would avoid Scylla & Charybdis too if possible,
but in no event would I run upon both.
If the trade with Europe were once opened,
our fast sailing vessels would carry our produce
there & bring us in return the articles we want.
Will our friends & the great body of congress unite in
any system of measures devised on the maturest reflection?
It is a glorious occasion, & I trust they will.
Yet I have my apprehensions.
I submit in confidence the above desultory reflections
to your better & more experienced judgment.
In a few days I shall repair to my post & have
the pleasure of a personal communication.3
Rodney had been appointed Attorney General by President Jefferson,
and had been spending most of his time practicing law in Delaware.
Now he appeared to be reporting for duty.
President Madison on 19 January 1810 responded to
the peacemaker George Logan by writing this letter:
I have received your favor of the 10th.
Your anxiety that our country may be kept out of
the vortex of war is honorable to your judgment
as a patriot and to your feeling as a man.
The same anxiety is, I sincerely believe, felt by
the great body of the nation & by its public councils;
most assuredly by the Executive Branch of them.
But the question may be decided for us by actual
hostilities against us or by proceedings leaving no choice
but between absolute disgrace & resistance by force.
May not also manifestations of patience under injuries &
indignities be carried so far as to invite this very dilemma?
I devoutly wish that the same disposition to cultivate
peace by means of justice which exists here,
predominated elsewhere, particularly in Great Britain.
But how can this be supposed while she persists in
proceedings which comprise the essence of hostility;
while she violates towards us rules which she enforces
against us in her own favor; more particularly while we
see her converting the late reconciliation through one of
her Ministers into a source of fresh difficulties &
animosities through another: For in this light must
be viewed her disavowal of Mr. Erskine and the
impressions made through his successor.
Had the disavowal been deemed essential to her
interests, a worse plaster could not have been
devised for the wound necessarily inflicted here.
But was the disavowal essential to her interests?
Was it material to them; taking for the test her own
spontaneous change of system & her own official language?
By the former I refer to her orders of April,
restricting their original orders against neutrals,
to a trade with France and Holland: by the latter,
to the conversation of Mr. Canning with Mr. Pinkney,
in which he abandons, as he could not but do, two of the
conditions which had been contemplated; and admits that a
non-intercourse law here against Holland was not a sine qua
non; So that the arrangement of Mr. Erskine was disavowed
essentially for want of a pledge that our non-intercourse
would be continued against France & her dominions.
But why disavow absolutely, why at all on this account?
The law was known to be in force against France
at the time of the arrangement.
It was morally certain that if put in force against
France while she was pleading the British orders,
it would not be withdrawn, if she should persist
in her decrees after being deprived of this plea.
And there could be no fair ground to suppose that the
condition would not be pledged & stipulated, if required, as
soon as the requisite Authorities here should be together.
The disavowal is the more extraordinary,
as the arrangement was to be respected till the
20th of July, and therefore with the addition of four
or five weeks only would have afforded an opportunity
of knowing the sense of this Government and of supplying
all that was wanted to satisfy the British Ultimatum.
This course was so obvious, & that pursued so opposite,
that we are compelled to look to other motives for an
explanation & to include among these a disinclination to
put an end to differences from which such advantages
are extracted by British Commerce & British Cruisers.
Notwithstanding all these grounds of discontent &
discouragement, we are ready, as the British
Government knows, to join in any new experiment,
(& through either our diplomatic channel there,
or hers here) for a cordial & comprehensive
adjustment of matters between the two countries.
Let reparation be made for the acknowledged wrong
committed in the case of the Chesapeake, a reparation so
cheap to the wrongdoer, yet so material to the honor of the
injured party; & let the orders in Council, already repealed
as to the avowed object of retaliation, be repealed also as
an expedient for substituting an illicit commerce in place of
that to which neutrals have as such an incontestable right.
The way will then be opened for negotiation at large;
and if the British Government would bring into it the
same temper as she would find in us; & the same
disposition to insist on nothing inconsistent with the
rule of doing as she would, or rather as she will be
done by, the result could not fail to be happy for both.
Permit me to remark that you are under a mistake
in supposing that the Treaty concluded by Messr.
Monroe& Pinkney was rejected because it did not
provide that free ships should make free goods.
It never was required nor expected that
such a stipulation should be inserted.
As to deserting Seamen, you will find that Great Britain
practices against us the principles we assert against her,
and in fact goes further; that we have always been ready
to enter into a convention on that subject founded on
reciprocity; and that the documents long since in print show,
that we are willing on the subject of impressment to put
an end to it by an arrangement which most certainly
would be better for the British Navy than that offensive
resource, & which might be so managed as to leave
both parties at liberty to retain their own ideas of right.
Let me add that the acceptance of that Treaty
would have very little changed the actual
situation of things with Great Britain.
The Orders in Council would not have been prevented
but rather placed on stronger ground; the case of the
Chesapeake, the same as it is; so also the case of
impressments, of factitious blockades &c all as at
present, pregnant sources of contention & ill-humor.
From this view of the subject, I cannot but persuade
myself that you will concur in opinion, that if
unfortunately, the calamity you so benevolently
dread, should visit this hitherto favored Country,
the fault will not lie where you would wish it not to lie.4
On 22 February 1810 Treasury Secretary Gallatin
in a letter to President Madison wrote,
In obedience to the Resolution of the Senate of the
Sixteenth instant, the Secretary of the Treasury
respectfully reports to the President of the United States
That exports to and imports from the ports of France
have not been nor are now permitted in the execution
of the Act “to interdict the commercial intercourse
between the United States and Great Britain and France
and their dependencies and for other purposes”
That exports to and imports from the ports of
Great Britain were in conformity with the Proclamation
of the President of the 19th day of April 1809 announcing
that the British orders in Council would be withdrawn on
the 10th day of June ensuing, permitted from the said
10th day of June and until the 9th day of August ensuing.
That the President having, by his Proclamation of
the 9th day of August 1809 announced that the British
orders in Council were not withdrawn on the tenth day
of June preceding, and consequently that the trade
renewable on the event of the said orders being withdrawn
was to be considered as under the operation of the several
acts by which such trade was suspended, information
thereof was immediately transmitted to the several
collectors by a circular dated also “August 9th 1809”
copy of which is herewith transmitted, and also of a
postscript directed to the Collectors on the Lakes.
That the collectors were informed by that circular
(which has already been laid by the President before
the Congress at the opening of the present session)
that the Act above mentioned was in every respect
applicable to Great Britain and her dependencies;
but that the President had also directed a suspension
of seizures & prosecutions in certain cases, arising
from acts which would, in conformity with his
Proclamation of the 19th day of April preceding,
have been considered as lawful; and that in such
cases the vessels and cargoes might be admitted to entry.
That no other instructions but those contained
in the said circular have been given on that subject
to the collectors; and that if any collector has
knowingly admitted to an entry goods the growth
and manufacture of Great Britain or France, in
any other case but those enumerated in the circular
above mentioned, such act is unknown to this Department
& would be considered as a high breach of duty.5
Also on February 22 the Republican Meeting of
Cecil County, Maryland sent this letter to Madison:
While faction with unblushing opposition to the
constituted authorities of our country, stalks abroad
in the persons of the advocates for national submission,
and the adherents of Mr. Jackson; the republicans of
Cecil county who have assembled at Elkton to
commemorate the birthday of the illustrious Washington,
think it a duty that they owe to themselves and their
country, to assure you that you possess their unequivocal
approbation of your private and political conduct, and
that they are determined to support the government
of their choice at the risk of their lives and fortunes.
We properly appreciate our chartered right of
freely discussing the measures of government,
but valuable as this privilege is, we would draw
a line between those who do not approve of all
the measures of your administration, and those
who attempt to palliate, nay, justify foreign
aggression and insult, and who losing sight of all sense
of national honor openly adulate a discarded minister.
The present unhappy commercial war has drawn
us into a most awful crisis, from which we believe
we can only be extricated by the most prompt and
energetic measures of the general government.
We dread a European peace before our rights and just
claims are recognized, and we believe that if we do not
at this time establish the dignity of our national character
by heroic firmness, and our commercial rights by express
and well defined treaties, the opportunity will be ever lost.
We regret that our claims, reasonable, equitable and just,
have not been clearly stated, and in the most plain
language, not only as a source of correct information to
the citizens of these United States; but, as a sine qua non
to the rulers of Europe; and with an express declaration
by our national legislature, that upon such claims being
recognized by either of the belligerents, the whole energies
of our country shall be called forth to maintain the contract,
and that we will declare out of our protection the persons
who may be detected in violating the treaty.
We believe with General Washington “It is our true policy
to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the
foreign world;” that we understand our own interests,
and are capable of managing our own national concerns;
and when the protection of any power is necessary we
shall know how to ask it, but what sir, is our boasted
independence if we are the sport of orders and decrees,
and of what consequence is it to us as a nation,
which of the belligerents shall first acknowledge
our rights by a manly unreserved treaty?
Let Great Britain, if the expression pleases her, fight for
her “own existence,” and may heaven grant her success—
Let France contend against coalitions formed to blot her
from the map of Europe, and may she be victorious;
but there cannot be any sound reason why we should
be involved in the hostilities of these nations, nor to use
another sentiment of the immortal Washington,
“why we should forego the advantages of our own
peculiar situation, why we should quit our own to
stand upon foreign ground, why by interweaving
our destiny with that of any part of Europe, we
should entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of
European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice.”
We wish to assure you sir, that the general
government has nothing to dread from the disaffected;
they are clamorous, but not numerous, and it is only
owing we believe to the temporizing indecision of congress,
that they are not left in a minority too inconsiderable
to be entitled even to the name of a party.
Should hostilities commence between the United States
and Great Britain; much as we shall regret the necessity,
yet one desirable result will follow, it will unite the friends
of our republican form of government by whatever names
they may be distinguished, and such characters as were
deemed Tories during our revolutionary struggle will be
indebted to political justice for a mere legal distinction;
and while some of the advocates for our national
degradation & submission will fly from our shores to
join the standard of our enemies; others will become
victims of their treason, and the pitiful residue will skulk
into retirement to escape from the penalties of the law,
and to conceal themselves from an offended people.
The great body of our citizens know the value of liberty,
and how important it is that they should submit to every
sacrifice to preserve their independence and
to hand it down unimpaired to posterity.
Our country is rich, our population great,
our resources many, and with grateful recollection of
Thomas Jefferson our late president, we can boast that
we are unencumbered with debt and our credit high.
The American people have not been called upon to
gratify the waste of an extravagant administration;
and this assures to you, that when there is real necessity,
they will cheerfully grant the reasonable requisition of
an enlightened, virtuous and patriotic government.
Continue then, sir, in the path you have trod,
to defend the honor and the rights of the United States,
and you may confidently rely upon the virtue
and resources of the American people.6
On 16 April 1810 Chief Justice John Marshall issued the
United States Supreme Court’s historic decision in Fletcher v. Peck.
This case settled the long-running dispute over the
Yazoo lands which the state of Georgia claimed.
Known as the Indian Reserve west of Georgia, these 35 million acres
eventually became the states of Alabama and Mississippi.
In 1795 Georgia had divided the land and sold it in four tracts
to speculators with different land development companies.
After the scandal of bribery was exposed, the voters turned out
many of those who had approved the corrupt deals.
John Peck sold the land he bought to Robert Fletcher who
sued him in 1803,
claiming that Peck did not have a clear title to the land when he sold it.
In a 6-1 decision Marshall wrote that they upheld the sale as a binding contract.
This case also promoted the process of taking legal title of land away from the Indians.
Retired Thomas Jefferson criticized the decision for favoring the
speculators from New England who eventually were paid $4,282,151.
The American consul in Paris told the American ambassador John Armstrong
that in the previous year 51 American ships had been taken in the ports of France,
44 in Spain, 28 in Naples, and 11 in Holland.
On May 1 Congress passed Nathaniel Macon’s Bill #2 drafted by
Treasury Secretary Gallatin that allowed American merchants to bring French
or British goods into American harbors while closing
American ports to ships of the belligerent nations.
This is US Macon’s Bill #2:
Introduction
Following the rejection of the Erskine Agreement
(which would have withdrawn the British Orders in Council)
by the British government, Congress established a
select committee, chaired by Nathaniel Macon of
North Carolina to draft a law in response.
The Non-Intercourse Act of March 1809,
which had replaced the Embargo Act of 1807,
had failed to achieve its purpose of influencing
the two warring nations by economic sanctions.
Macon's Bill, No. 2 (which satisfied neither Macon,
who disowned the bill, nor President Madison),
enacted by the United States Congress on May 1,
1810, repealed the Non-Intercourse Act
(which was due to expire anyway), forbade British
or French warships from entering American waters.
It also gave the President the authority to suspend
trade with either Britain or France if the other
revoked its policy of interdicting American trade.
The removal of all restrictions on American trade
was extremely favorable to Britain, but President
Madison, who found the bill “submissive and degrading
in spirit,” put the best face on it by hoping that France
might be so induced to revoke her trade restrictions.
An Act concerning the commercial
intercourse between the United States
and Great Britain and France, and their
dependencies, and for other purposes
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
That from and after the passage of this act, no British or
French armed vessels shall be permitted to enter the
harbors or waters under the jurisdiction of the United
States; but every British and French armed vessel is hereby
interdicted, except when they shall be forced in by distress,
by the dangers of the sea, or when charged with dispatches
or business from their government, or coming as a public
packet for the conveyance of letters; in which cases, as well
as in all others, when they shall be permitted to enter, the
commanding officer shall immediately report his vessel to
the collector of the district, stating the object or causes of
his entering the harbors or waters of the United States;
and shall take such position therein as shall be assigned
him by such collector, and shall conform himself,
his vessel and crew, to such regulations respecting
health, repairs, supplies, stay, intercourse and departure,
as shall be signified to him by the said collector, under
the authority and directions of the President of the
United States, and, not conforming thereto, shall
be required to depart from the United States.
and shall take such position therein as shall be assigned
him by such collector, and shall conform himself,
his vessel and crew, to such regulations respecting
health, repairs, supplies, stay, intercourse and departure,
as shall be signified to him by the said collector, under
the authority and directions of the President of the
United States, and, not conforming thereto, shall
be required to depart from the United States.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That all pacific
intercourse with any interdicted foreign armed vessels,
the officers or crew thereof, is hereby forbidden, and
if any person shall afford any aid to such armed vessel
either in repairing her or in furnishing her, her officers
or crew with supplies of any kind or in any manner
whatsoever, or if any pilot shall assist in navigating the
said armed vessel, contrary to this prohibition, unless
for the purpose of carrying her beyond the limits and
jurisdiction of the United States, the person or persons so
offending shall be liable to be bound to their good behavior,
and shall moreover forfeit and pay a sum not exceeding
two thousand dollars, to be recovered upon indictment or
information in any court of competent jurisdiction; one
moiety thereof to the treasury of the United States, and
the other moiety to the person who shall give information
and prosecute the same to effect: Provided, that if the
prosecution shall be by a public officer the whole forfeiture
shall accrue to the treasury of the United States.
SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That all the penalties
and forfeitures which may have been incurred under the
act, entitled “An Act to interdict the commercial intercourse
between the United States and Great Britain and France
and their dependencies and for other purposes,” and also
all the penalties and forfeitures which may have been
incurred under the act laying an embargo on all ships and
vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States, or
under any of the several acts supplementary thereto,
or to enforce the same, or under the acts to interdict the
commercial intercourse between the United States and
Great Britain and France and their dependencies, and
for other purposes, shall be recovered and distributed,
and may be remitted in the manner provided by the
said acts respectively, and in like manner as if the
said acts had continued in full force and effect.
SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That in case either
Great Britain or France shall before the third day of March
next, so revoke or modify her edicts as that they shall
cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States,
which fact the President of the United States shall declare
by proclamation, and if the other nation shall not within
three months thereafter so revoke or modify her edicts
in like manner, then the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh,
eighth, ninth, tenth, and eighteenth sections of the act,
entitled “An act to interdict the commercial intercourse
between the United States and Great Britain and France
and their dependencies, and for other purposes,” shall,
from and after the expiration of three months from
the date of the proclamation aforesaid, be revived and have full
force and effect, so far as relates to the dominions,
colonies and dependencies, and to the articles the growth,
produce or manufacture of the dominions, colonies, and
dependencies of the nation thus refusing or neglecting
to revoke or modify her edicts in the manner aforesaid.
And the restrictions imposed by this act shall,
from the date of such proclamation, cease and
be discontinued in relation to the nation revoking
or modifying her decrees in the manner aforesaid.7
On 23 May 1810 President Madison wrote
this letter to William Pinkney in London:
You will learn from the Department of State,
as you must have anticipated, our surprise that
the answer of Lord Wellesley to your very just
and able view of the case of Francis James Jackson,
corresponded so little with the impressions of that
Minister manifested in your first interviews with him.
The date of the answer best explains the change;
as it shows that time was taken for obtaining intelligence
from this country and adapting the policy of the answer
to the position taken by the advocates of Jackson.
And it must have happened that the intelligence prevailing
at that date was of the sort most likely to mislead.
The elections which have since taken place in the Eastern
States, and which have been materially influenced by the
affair of Jackson and the spirit of party connected with it,
are the strongest of proofs, that the measure of the
Executive coincided with the feelings of the Nation.
In every point of view the answer is unworthy
of the source from which it comes.
From the manner in which the vacancy left by Jackson
is provided for, it is inferred that a sacrifice is meant
of the respect belonging to this Government, either
to the pride of the British Government, or to the feelings
of those who have taken side with it against their own.
On either supposition it is necessary
to counteract the ignoble purpose.
You will accordingly find that on ascertaining the
substitution of a Chargé to be an intentional
degradation of the diplomatic intercourse on the part
of Great Britain, it is deemed proper that no higher
functionary should represent the United States at London.
I sincerely wish on every account that the views of the
British Government in this instance may not be such as
are denoted by appearances, or that on finding the
tendency of them they may be changed.
However the fact may turn out, you will of course not lose
sight of the expediency of mingling in every step you take,
as much of moderation and even of conciliation, as can
be justifiable; and will in particular, if the present
dispatches should find you in actual negotiation, be
governed by the result of it in determining the question
of your devolving your trust on a Secretary of Legation.
The Act of Congress transmitted from the Department
of State will inform you of the footing on which our
relations to the Belligerent powers were finally placed.
The experiment now to be made of a commerce
with both, unrestricted by our laws has resulted
from causes which you will collect from the debates
and from your own reflections.
The new form of appeal to the policy of Great Britain
and France on the subject of the Decrees and Orders
will most engage your attention.
However feeble it may appear, it is possible that one
or other of those powers may allow it more effect
than was produced by the overtures heretofore tried.
As far as pride may have influenced the reception of these,
it will be the less in the way, as the law in its present form
may be regarded by each of the parties, if it so pleases,
not as a coercion or a threat to itself,
but as a promise of attack on the other.
Great Britain indeed may conceive that she has
now a complete interest in perpetuating the actual
state of things, which gives her the full enjoyment
of our trade and enables her to cut it off with
every part of the World; at the same time that
it increases the chance of such resentments in France at the
inequality, as may lead to hostilities with the United States.
But on the other hand, this very inequality, which France
would confirm by a state of hostilities with the United States,
may become a motive with her to turn the tables on
Great Britain by compelling her either to revoke her
orders or to lose the commerce of this Country.
An apprehension that France may take this
politic course would be a rational motive with
the British Government to get the start of her.
Nor is this the only apprehension that merits attention.
Among the inducements to the experiment of an
unrestricted commerce now made, were two which
contributed essentially to the majority of votes in its favor;
first a general hope, favored by daily accounts from
England, that an adjustment of differences there, and
thence in France would render the measure safe & proper;
second, a willingness in not a few to teach the advocates
for an open trade under actual circumstances, the folly,
as well as degradation of their policy.
At the next meeting of Congress it will be found
according to present appearances, that instead of an
adjustment with either of the Belligerents, there is an
increased obstinacy in both; and that the inconveniences
of the Embargo and non-intercourse have been exchanged
for the greater sacrifices as well as disgrace, resulting
from a submission to the predatory systems in force.
It will not be wonderful therefore, if the passive spirit
which marked the late Session of Congress should at
the next meeting be roused to the opposite point;
more especially as the tone of the Nation has never been
as low as that of its Representatives, and as it is rising
already under the losses sustained by our Commerce in the
Continental ports and by the fall of prices in our produce at
home under a limitation of the market to Great Britain.
Cotton I perceive is down at 10 or 11 cents in Georgia.
The great mass of Tobacco is in a similar situation.
And the effect must soon be general
with the exception of a few articles which
do not at present glut the British demand.
Whether considerations like these will make
any favorable impression on the British Cabinet,
you will be the first to know.
Whatever confidence I may have in the justness
of them, I must forget all that has passed before
I can indulge very favorable expectations.
Every new occasion seems to countenance the belief,
that there lurks in the British Cabinet, a hostile feeling
towards this Country which will never be eradicated during
the present Reign; nor overruled while it exists, but by
some dreadful pressure from external or internal causes.
With respect to the French Government
we are taught by experience to be equally distrustful.
It will have however, the same opportunity presented to it
with the British Government of comparing the actual state
of things with that which would be produced by a repeal
of its Decrees; and it is not easy to find any plausible
motive to continue the former as preferable to the latter.
A worse state of things than the actual one could not exist
for France, unless her preference be for a state of War.
If she be sincere either in her late propositions relative
to a chronological revocation of illegal Edicts against
Neutrals, or to a pledge from the United States not to submit
to those of Great Britain, she ought at once to embrace the
arrangement held out by Congress; the renewal of a
non-intercourse with Great Britain being the very species
of resistance most analogous to her professed views.8
On 25 May 1801 Madison in a letter to Jefferson wrote,
A former National Intelligencer will have given
you our last communications from Great Britain.
That of this morning exhibits our
prospects on the side of France.
The late confiscations by Bonaparte, comprise robbery,
theft, & breach of trust, and exceed in turpitude any
of his enormities, not wasting human blood.
This scene on the continent and the effect of English
Monopoly on the value of our produce are breaking
the charm attached to what is called free trade,
foolishly by some, & wickedly by others.
We are looking hourly for the “John Adams.”
There is a possibility that the negotiations
on foot at Paris may vary our prospects there.
The change would be better perhaps, if the last act of
Congress were in the hands of Armstrong; which puts
our trade on the worst possible footing for France;
but at the same time, puts it in the option of her,
to revive the Non-intercourse against England.
There is a possibility also that the views of the latter may be
somewhat affected by the recent elections; it being pretty
certain that the change in the tone of Wellesley from that
first manifested to Pinkney, was in part at least, produced
by the intermediate intelligence from the U. S. which
flattered a fallacious reliance on the British party here.9
Some of the Louisiana Purchase called the Orleans Territory was governed
by William C. C. Claiborne, and President Madison met with him on June 14
to ask influential citizens of Baton Rouge to keep the French and English
from interfering in the Florida territories.
The American strategy was to play the French
and English off each other so that both would relent.
Anglo-American trade revived during the summer, but new Orders
in Council changed the British policy from anti-French to anti-American.
Madison’s short letter to Jefferson on June 22 included these important ideas:
On the first publication of the dispatches by the
John Adams, so strong a feeling was produced by
Armstrong’s picture of the French robbery, that the attitude
in which England was placed by the correspondence
between Pinkney & Wellesley was overlooked.
The public attention is beginning to fix itself on the proof it
affords that the original sin against Neutrals lies with Great
Britain & that while she acknowledges it, she persists in it….
Have you received a Copy of Cooper’s
(the Pennsylvania Judge) masterly opinion on
the question whether the sentence of a foreign Admiralty
court in a prize Cause, be conclusive evidence in
a Suit here between the Underwriter & Insured.
It is a most thorough, investigation, and irrefragable
disproof of the British Doctrine on the subject, as
adopted by a decision of the Supreme Court of the U. S.?
If you are without a Copy, I will provide & forward one.10
Madison drafted a letter so that Secretary of State
Robert Smith could sent it to John Armstrong in Paris.
The arrival of the John Adams brought
your letters of the following dates.
From that of the 16th April it appears that the seizures
of American property lately made had been followed
up by its actual sale, & that the proceeds had been
deposited in the Emperors Caisse prive.
You have presented in such just colors the enormity
of the outrage, that I have only to signify to you that
the President entirely approves the step taken by you,
& that he does not doubt that it will be followed by
yourself, or the person succeeding to the duty, with any
further interpositions which may be deemed advisable.
He instructs you, particularly, to make the French
Government sensible of the deep impression made
here by so signal an aggression on the principles
of justice & of good faith, & to demand every
reparation of which the case is susceptible.
If it be not the purpose of the French Government
to renounce every idea of friendly adjustment
with the U. S. it would seem impossible but that a
reconsideration of this violent proceeding must lead to a
redress of it, as a preliminary to a general accommodation
of the differences between the two Nations.
At the date of the last communications from Mr. Pinkney
he had not obtained from the British Government an
acceptance of the condition on which the French
Government was willing to concur in putting an end to all
the illegal Edicts of both against our neutral commerce.
Should he have afterwards succeeded, you will
of course on receiving the fact, immediately
claim from the French Government the fulfilment
of its promise; and by transmitting it to Mr. Pinkney
co-operate with him in completing the removal of
all the illegal obstructions to our commerce.
Among the documents now sent is another copy of
the Act of Congress repealing the non-intercourse law;
but authorizing a renewal of it against Great Britain
in case France shall repeal her Edicts; & Great Britain
refuse to follow the example; & vice versa.
You have been already informed that the President
is ready to exercise the power vested in him for
such a purpose, as soon as the occasion shall arise.
Should the other experiment in the hands of Mr. Pinkney
have failed, you will make the Act of Congress and
the disposition of the President the subject of a formal
communication to the French Government and it is not
easy to conceive any grounds even specious on which
the overture specified in the Act can be declined.
If the non-intercourse law in any of its
modifications was objectionable to the Emperor
of the French, that law no longer exists.
If he be ready, as has been declared in the letter
of the Duc de Cadore of February 14, to do justice
to the U. S. in the case of a pledge on their part,
not to submit to the British Edicts, the opportunity
for making good the declaration is now furnished.
Instead of submission the President is ready by
renewing the Non-intercourse against Great Britain to
oppose to her orders in Council a measure of a character,
which ought to satisfy every reasonable expectation.
Should it be necessary for you to meet the question
whether the non-intercourse will be renewed against
Great Britain in case she should not comprehend in a
repeal of her Edicts, her Blockades, not consistent with
the Law of Nations, you may, if found necessary, let it be
understood that a repeal of the illegal Blockades prior to the
Berlin Decree, namely that of May 1806, will be included
in the condition required of Great Britain: that particular
blockade having been avowed to be comprehended in
& of course identified with the orders in Council.
With respect to Blockades, of subsequent date or not
against France, you will press the reasonableness of
leaving them, together with future blockades not
warranted by public law, to be proceeded against
by the U. S in the manner they may choose to adopt.
As has been heretofore stated to you, a satisfactory
provision for restoring the property lately surprised &
seized by the order or at the instance of the French
Government must be combined with a repeal of the
French Edicts with a view to a non-intercourse with
Great Britain: such a provision being an indispensable
evidence of the just purposes of France towards the U. S.
And you will moreover be careful in arranging
such a provision for that particular case of
spoliations, not to weaken the ground on which
a redress of others may be justly pursued.
If the Act in legalizing a free trade with both the
Belligerents; without guarding against British
interruptions of it with France while France cannot
materially interrupt it with Great Britain, be complained
of as leaving the trade on the worst possible footing for
France & on the best possible one for Great Britain,
the French Government may be reminded of the other
feature of the Act which puts it in their own power to
obtain either an interruption of our trade with Great
Britain or a recall of her interruption of it with France.
Among the considerations which belong to this
subject it may be remarked, that it might have
been reasonably expected by the U. S. that a
repeal of the French decrees would have resulted
from the British Order in Council of April 1809.
This order, expressly revoked the preceding orders of
November 1807 heretofore urged by France in justification
of her Decrees, & was not only different in its extent and in
its details, but was essentially different in its policy & object.
The object of the orders of 1807 was by cutting off
all commercial supplies, to retort on her Enemies
the distress, which the French Decree
was intended to inflict on Great Britain.
The object of the Order of April 1809 was if not avowedly,
most certainly, not to deprive France of such supplies;
but by arresting those from neutral sources, to favor
a surreptitious monopoly to British Traders.
In order to counteract this object, it was the manifest
interest of France to have favored the rival & cheaper
supplies through neutrals; instead of which she has
co-operated with the monopolizing views of Great Britain
by a rigorous exclusion of neutrals from her ports.
She has in fact reversed the operation
originally professed by her Decrees.
Instead of annoying her enemy at the expense of a
friend, she annoys a friend for the benefit of her enemy.
Should the French Government accede to the overture
contained in the Act of Congress by repealing or so
modifying its Decrees as that they will cease to violate
our neutral rights, you will transmit the repeal properly
authenticated to Mr. Pinkney by a special messenger
if necessary; and hasten & ensure the receipt of it here,
by engaging a vessel if no equivalent conveyance should
offer to bring it directly from France and sending several
copies to Mr. Pinkney to be forwarded from British Ports.11
On 23 July 1810 the Secretary of the Navy Paul Hamilton
wrote in a letter to President Madison:
I enclose for your information copies of letters
relating to another outrage on our Flag.
Some of the Gun Boats on the Orleans station having
become unfit for service, I judged it expedient to replace
them by one of our most active brigs of a depth of draft
convenient in the waters of that Territory.
For this purpose the Vixen was selected, and it being
necessary that on that distant station, the officers to
be employed should be men whose experience and
character entitle them to confidence, Lieut. Trippe
was ordered to take command of that Vessel.
Mr. Poindexter returning from his duties in Congress
with his family and a Son of the Attorney general
for the benefit of his health took passage with
Mr. Trippe by permission from this Department.
As I have recalled Lieut. Trippe for the purpose
of a scrutiny into his conduct which strikes me as
being exceptionable in two particulars, I will not
at present trouble you with any comments on it;
but on the behavior of the Commander of the British
vessel I cannot but observe that it appears from the
statements given to have been unjustifiable and outrageous.
In forming this opinion I beg that I may not be understood
as intending to dispute the right of one Ship of War firing
to bring to another not known to be friendly.
This right is admitted, and the frequent deceptions practiced
by false colors warrant the propriety of the practice;
but as it must have been discovered before the second
shot was fired that our Vessel bore up, and was boarded
by the British boat, on no principle of justice or humanity
ought any firing to have taken place until sufficient time
had been allowed for the boat to return and make report.
Adopting a different course of conduct constitutes,
in my judgment, an outrage purposely intended.
If the statements given are correct, it was impossible
for the British Commander to have reason to suspect the
character of our Vessel; and the unmanly evasion that the
Shot was not intended to take effect, proves nothing more
than the meanness of the man who was guilty of it.
As this affair occasions much talk here and will no doubt
become the subject of much newspaper animadversion
I have thought it not amiss to give a view of it in the
Intelligencer to prevent if possible misrepresentations.12
American settlers believed that Spain had less than 400 half-starved soldiers
at Pensacola, and they met at St. John’s Plains in West Florida on July 25
to discuss the future of the territory also claimed by Spain.
Those who wanted a separate state and to turn it over to the US Army
were a
majority and were willing to leave the cooperative Governor de Lassus in office.
The wily Emperor Napoleon reacted by offering to withdraw the
Berlin and Milan decrees if the United States Congress pledged
to punish any nation that held on to its anti-American edicts.
Madison on 26 July 1810 wrote in a letter to Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin,
I enclosed to you a few days ago a letter from Dr. Bache
stating the complaints of Mrs. Jones, against the
proceedings of the District Attorney at New Orleans.
I have just received & enclose one from Mrs. Trist
which is more full on the same subject.
I am aware that the business may lie rather with
the Controller than with you; but it is not amiss
that it should be under your view also.
As Grymes’ explanations have not been received
as he is personally obnoxious to that family, and as one
of his Accusers is Evan Jones, whose personal animosity
is embittered by his political, it would be very unfair,
as it is now unnecessary to pass judgment on his conduct.
It is easy to perceive that more was expected from him,
than might be consistent with his public duty;
though it is to be presumed also, that a reciprocity
of ill-will might tempt him to do less.
If the property should, as I take to be of course
soon be exposed again to sale, Mrs. Jones will
have the opportunity of which she thinks she
has been deprived, of becoming the purchaser.
I remain without information from abroad.
We are at length relieved from the apprehension
of an Indian war, which at one moment Governor
Harrison’s intelligence as to the arrangements
of the Prophet, rendered highly probable.
The several Tribes, towards the lakes, who had
entered into his views, failed him at the critical moment.13
On July 28 Richard Law and 25 citizens, who were detained in Norway,
wrote a “Memorial” to Madison about their conflicts with several ships
claiming to be under the authority of the King of Denmark.
They explained,
Your Memorialists beg leave to refer your Excellency
to a list of the vessels to which they respectively belong,
accompanying this, together with the date of their
respective clearances from the United States and
hope your Excellency will direct the necessary enquiries
to be made at the different Custom houses for the truth
of what your Memorialists advance on this head.
Your Memorialists also beg leave to state to your
Excellency that some of their Countrymen have
seen the Register of the Ship Commerce of Philadelphia,
which vessel was condemned by the high Court of
Admiralty at Christiana last year in the possession
of a Swedish Gentleman, who purchased the Ship
at Public Auction and her Register privately from
the Captain of the Privateer who captured her;
by what means this Document was obtained from the Court
or what has become of the Registers of the other American
Vessels condemned there, they have not been able to learn.
This is the conduct practiced by those very people whose
principal charge against the Americans who are captured
is that they are from England with false papers!
The mode of what is here called a trial of those
Vessels which are captured is of itself ruinous,
if even a final liberation takes place.
Some of your Memorialists have been detained
upwards of two months and their papers are not
yet laid before the Court at this place, and even
after the decision of this Court the Captors have it in
their power to make a delay of eight weeks before the
papers are forwarded to the high Court at Copenhagen.
That Court tardy always to an extreme in its operations
will be rendered still so by the great number of appeal
Cases arising from the many Americans already captured,
so that your Memorialists see no prospect whatever of
getting through it in less than six and probably more than
twelve months, this joined with the preceding delay will
be dreadful, the Cargoes during this time perishing in
the Vessels, not being able to discharge them.
All this is also exclusive of the heavy expenses of
from five to ten & even twenty thousand dollars which
accompany an appeal to the upper Court, & which the
Americans have as yet been invariably obliged to pay.
In this unjustifiable delay the Captors have several
objects in view, one of which is in hopes of some
political change that will enable them to make prizes
of the Vessels, and another expecting to extort a large
sum by way of an inducement for them to relinquish
the appeal, knowing at the same time that they will
be exonerated from any of the expenses.
The decisions of the upper Court
have been always to that effect.
The amount of property already detained, your memorialists
consider not only embarrassing to the owners in America,
but also highly alarming in a National point of view.
Your Memorialists feel themselves authorized to
state that what comes under their own immediate
observation alone exceeds several millions of dollars,
and the amount hourly increasing.14
Also on July 28 Judge Harry Toulmin in the west Mississippi Territory
wrote from Fort Stoddert to Madison a fairly long letter
about the conflicts in West Florida concluding,
As to the probable issue of this business,
I am by no means satisfied.
If it has really gone to the length that Kennedy asserts,
and if the people be really so generally well affected to it
(though I believe that no individual should be condemned
on his testimony alone); I believe that the enterprise
will be carried into effect and that with a moderate
share of conduct and courage, it will be successful.
As to its depending at all on any assurances from
Georgia, I do not believe it.
It may be politic to hold out the idea to the
people & by and by to make a declaration
that such assurances have been received.
Or it may be nothing more than a scheme to provide
for the leaders a decent way to retreat out of the
conspiracy in case it should be thought too hazardous.
But I cannot conceive that the projectors of the enterprise
really mean to let it rest on a contingency so precarious.
As to their success, if they should really persevere;
the few troops which are in this country cannot stop them,
nor indeed, do I see how the military commander could step
forward by virtue of any authority with which he is invested.
Besides this the insurgents may cross the line at some point
entirely out of the observation of Fort Stoddert:
and when they get to Mobile, if they have anything of the
energy of desperadoes, they may enforce a surrender from
the Spanish officers, notwithstanding the Spanish troops &
the 4 or 500 Indians whom they have to protect them.
It is possible indeed that the Invaders may have
confederates at Mobile: but I do not conceive that
they have any connection with the revolutionists in
New Feliciana, (on the Mississippi) as there is
no intercourse between that country & this.
But I do not believe that there is anything
like such unanimity among the people of this
country as Kennedy seemed to calculate upon.
I even believe that the greater part of the old Tories,
true to their original principles, are disposed to
remain submissive subjects of the powers that be.
The other old settlers have generally property,
and few of them will be disposed to risk that
for the sake of pre-eminence.
As to the new comers, who are numerous and generally
needy, I am not much acquainted with them.
They are mostly from Georgia & are settled on the
public lands and certainly ought in prudence not to
provoke an enforcement upon them of the provisions of
the law to prevent settlements being made unauthorized.
They are besides acquainted only by report
with Spanish oppression and are not likely
very soon to be materially affected by it.
For these reasons I am not without the hope,
that the current may still be turned.
Perhaps indeed it is already turned, & this disclosure
might be made to me by Kennedy merely to enable
them to have a decent way of getting out of the scrape.
I shall, however, use all the exertions
I can to ward off the meditated blow, but
I must rely on argument & persuasion merely.
If there were public meetings, I should fear nothing.
But everything here is done by private intrigue
& as the people are exceedingly scattered,
it is hard to see many of them at a time.15
On August 2 Napoleon began dictating a letter that was signed by the
Duc de Cadore on August 5 promising envoy John Armstrong that the
punitive French decrees would be recalled after November 1
if the British withdrew their Orders in Council.
The United States Census was taken in August, and they found that
the population had increased from about 5,300,000 in 1800 to 7,239,881 in 1810.
The number of slaves in the US was 1,191,362.
The population in the Louisiana Territory from the purchase was less than 100,000.
The tonnage of American shipping climbed to a high of 1,424,000,
and that number would not be surpassed until 1826.
Registered foreign tonnage at 984,000 would not be matched for forty years.
New vessels in the US would reach 127,000 tons in 1810.
The embargo caused the net customs revenue to fall from
$16,500,000 in 1807 to about $7,000,000 in 1808 and 1809.
In 1810 customs reached $12,750,000.
Most of US foreign trade was with Britain and its American colonies.
John Armstrong in Paris wrote on 5 August 1810 in a letter to Madison:
Nothing can better illustrate the opinions I have
frequently had the honor to give on the subject of
our differences with France, than the history of the
revocation of the Berlin and Milan decrees, announced
in my official letter of this date to Mr. Smith.
On the 27th Ultimo advices were received from England
stating that on the arrival of the John Adams, Congress
had been called and that the object of this extra-Session
was known to be a declaration of War against France.
The excitement produced by this report was greater
than I had expected, though I well knew that such
a report, if credited at all, would not fail to produce
one of considerable seriousness and extent.
Repeated messages were sent to me to know,
what I had heard and what I believed?
I disguised nothing—I answered that I knew the
writers to be respectable men and likely, from their
connection with the United States to be well-informed;
that I had myself seen the letters; that I believed the
extra-Session a probable measure and that if it did take
place, it could only be for the purpose which had been
suggested, as the President’s powers were competent
to any course of conduct, short of declaring war.
Jean-Baptiste Petry was of the same opinion and,
no doubt, most honestly so.
To these circumstances, light as they appear, is owing
the revocation, which abundantly proves two things—
1st. that though France has no objection to frighten,
she has no disposition to fight the U. S.
Her ambition, gigantic and terrible as it certainly is,
is travelling another road & will find full occupation
for twenty years to come in establishing her
dominion over Europe &c. &c.
2nd. that sick of expedients by which she has
lost both character & money, & under which her
people are fast impoverishing—she would now return
to a degree of justice, moderation and good sense.
To the first of these, her disposition is however
less strong than it ought to be, and I much fear that
on the present occasion, she will content herself
by coming within the mere letter of your late law
& instructions, that is—that she will revoke her decrees,
and make her seizures a subject of future Negotiation.
It will be for you to decide how far good faith will furnish
an obedience to the injunctions of the Act of Congress,
should England refuse to annul or so to modify, her orders
in Council, as to leave your Maritime rights unmolested.
That circumstances may exist that shall enable you,
on the soundest principles to dispense with these
obligations cannot be doubted and be assured,
that should such circumstances arise, I will
not fail to communicate them to you.
I subjoin to this letter another measure of the Council
of Commerce, which is however still in discussion.
It is a new tariff of duties which is not less than
50 percent of the market price of the Article.
It matters not to tell them, that this avidity will defeat
itself by Keeping the Articles enumerated out of the
market, or, (what is still worse) by smuggling them into it.
They answer, that if on experiment such should
be the effect, it will be time enough to alter it.
I have no doubt therefore but that
this new tariff will be adopted.
As good is sometimes brought out of evil, it strikes me
that we may turn this very tariff to Account.
By applying it to the St. Sebastian Seizures, he will
have half the Amount he now has, & will at the
same time recover in some degree his character
for justice, & thus re-inspire us with a confidence,
which can alone fill his ports with our Commerce.
If this idea, presented as it may be, in conjunction
with the ill-effects of an opposite policy, does not
bring about some degree of reparation, I almost
despair of obtaining any at the present moment.
Burr is yet here but in uneasy circumstances.
A pass-port for the U. S. which he requested,
has been refused—under the belief, as my informant states,
that his real destination was South America or England.16
On 13 August 1810 William Pinkney wrote this letter
to Madison about his diplomatic efforts dealing with the
British minister Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington:
I return you my sincere Thanks for
your friendly Letter of the 23rd of May.
Nothing could have been more acceptable than the
Approbation which you are so good as to express
of my Note to Lord Wellesley on Jackson’s Affair.
I wish I had been more successful in my Endeavors
to obtain an unexceptionable Answer to it.
You need not be told that the actual Reply was in its plan &
Terms wide of the Expectations which I had formed of it.
It was unfortunately delayed until first Views
& Feelings became weak of themselves.
The Support which Jackson received in America was
admirably calculated to produce other Views & Feelings;
not only by its direct Influence on Lord Wellesley & his
Colleagues, but by the Influence which they could not
but know it had on the British Nation & the Parliament.
The extravagant Conduct of France had the same
pernicious Tendency; and the Appearances in Congress
with Reference to our future Attitude on the Subject of
the Atrocious Wrongs inflicted upon us by France &
England could scarcely be without their Effect.
It is not to be doubted that with a strong Desire in the
outset to act a very conciliatory part, the British
Government was thus gradually prepared to introduce into
the proceeding what would not otherwise have found a
place in it, and to omit what it ought to have contained.
The Subject appeared to it every Day in a new Light,
shed upon it from France & the United States, and a
corresponding Change naturally enough took place in
the scarcely-remembered Estimates which had at first
been made of the proper Mode of managing it.
The Change in Lord Wellesley’s Notions upon it,
between our first Interview & the Date of his
Answer to my Note must have been considerable,
if that Answer had, as doubtless it had, his Approbation.
For the Account of that Interview, as given in my
private Letter to Mr. Smith of the 4th of January,
is so far from exaggerating Lord Wellesley’s Reception
of what I said to him, that it is much below it.
It is to be observed, however, that he
had hardly read the Correspondence and
had evidently thought very little upon it.
For which Reason and because he spoke for
himself only and with less Care than he would
perhaps have used if he had considered that he
was speaking officially, I am glad that you declined
to lay my private Letter before the Congress.
The Publication of it, which must necessarily have
followed, would have produced serious Embarrassment.
Do you not think that in some Respects
Lord Wellesley’s Answer to my Note has
not been exactly appreciated in America?
I confess to you that this is my Opinion.
That the Paper is a very bad one is perfectly clear;
but it is not so bad in Intention as it is in Reality, nor
quite so bad in Reality as it is commonly supposed to be.
It is the production of an indolent Man, making a
great Effort to reconcile Things almost incongruous,
and just showing his Wish without executing it.
Lord Wellesley wished to be extremely civil to the American
Government; but he was at the same Time to be very
stately—to manage Jackson’s Situation—and to intimate
Disapprobation of the Suspension of his Functions.
He was stately, not so much from Design,
as because he cannot be otherwise.
In managing Jackson’s Situation he must have gone
beyond his original Intention and certainly beyond any,
of which I was aware before I received his Answer.
If the Answer had been promptly written, I have no
Belief that he would have affected to praise Jackson’s
“Ability, Zeal & Integrity,” or that he would have said
anything about his Majesty’s not having “marked his
Conduct with any Expression of his Displeasure.”
He would have been content to forbear to censure him;
and that I always took for granted he would do.
For Jackson personally Lord Wellesley cares nothing.
In his several Conferences with me he never
vindicated him, and he certainly did not mean
in his Letter to undertake his Defense.
It is impossible that he should not have
(I am indeed sure that he has) a mean opinion
of that most clumsy and ill-conditioned Minister.
His Idea always appeared to be that he was wrong
in pressing at all the Topic which gave offense;
but that he acted upon good Motives, and that his
Government could not with Honor, or without Injury
to the Diplomatic Service generally, disgrace him.
This is explicitly stated in my private Letter
of the 4th of January to Mr. Smith.
There is a great Difference, undoubtedly,
between that Idea and the one upon which
Lord Wellesley appears finally to have acted.
It must be admitted, however, that the Praise
bestowed upon Jackson is very Meagre, and
that it ascribes to him no Qualities in any Degree
inconsistent with the Charge of gross Indecency &
intolerable Petulance preferred against him in my Note.
He might be honest, Zealous, able; and yet be indiscreet,
ill-tempered, suspicious, arrogant, and ill-mannered.
It is to be observed, too, that the Praise has no
Reference whatever to the actual Case, and that, when
the Answer speaks of the Offense imputed to Jackson
by the American Government, it does not say that he
gave no such Cause of Offense, but simply relies on his
repeated Asseverations that he did not mean to offend.
If the Answer had been promptly written,
I am persuaded that another Feature, which now
distinguishes it, would have been otherwise.
It would not have contained any Complaint against
the Course adopted by the American Government in
putting an End to official Communication with Jackson.
That Lord Wellesley thought that Course
objectionable from the first appears in my
private Letter abovementioned to Mr. Smith.
But he did not urge his Objections to it in such a Way at our
first Interview or afterwards, as to induce me to suppose
that he would except to that Course in his written Answer.
He said in the outset that he considered it a Damnum
to the British Government; and I knew that he was
not disposed to acknowledge the Regularity of it.
But I did not imagine that he
would take any formal Notice of it.
There was evidently no Necessity, if he did not
approve the Course, to say anything about it, and in our
Conversations I always assumed that it was not only
unnecessary but wholly inadmissible to mention it
officially for any other purpose than that of approving it.
After all, however, what he has said upon this Point
(idle & ill-judged as it is) is the mere Statement of
the Opinion of the British Government that another
Course would have been more in Rule than ours.
It amounts to this, then, that we have
Opinion against Opinion & Practice and
that our Practice has been acquiesced in.
As to that part of the Answer which speaks of a
Chargé d’Affaires, it must now be repented of here,
especially by Lord Wellesley, if it was really intended as a
Threat of future Inequality in the Diplomatic Establishments
of the two Countries, or even to wear that Appearance.
Lord Wellesley’s Letter to me of the 22nd abandons that
Threat and makes it consequently much worse than nothing.
His Explanations to me on that Head (not official) have lately
been, that when he wrote his Answer, he thought there
was some person in America to whom Jackson could
immediately have delivered Charge, and that, if he had not
been under that Impression, he should not probably have
spoken in his Answer of a Chargé d’Affaires, and should
have sent out a Minister plenipotentiary in the first Instance.
I know not what Stress ought to be laid upon these private
& ex post facto Suggestions; but I am entirely convinced
that there was no Thought of continuing a Charge d’Affaires
at Washington for more than a short Time.
Neither their Pride, nor their Interests, nor the Scantiness
of their present diplomatic Patronage would permit it.
That Lord Wellesley has long been looking out in his
dilatory Way for a suitable Character (a Man of Rank)
to send as Minister plenipotentiary to the U. S.
I have the best Reason to be assured.
That the Appointment has not yet taken place
is no proof at all that it has not been intended.
Those who think they understand Lord Wellesley best,
represent him as disinclined to Business—and it is
certain that I have found him upon every Occasion
given to Procrastination beyond all Example.
The Business of the Chesapeake is a striking Instance.
Nothing could be fairer than his
various Conversations on that Case.
He settles it with me verbally over & over again.
He promises his written Overture in a few Days,
and I hear no more of the Matter.
There may be Cunning in all this, but it is not such
Cunning as I should expect from Lord Wellesley.
In the affair of the Blockades it is evident that the Delay
arises from the Cabinet, alarmed at everything which
touches the Subject of Blockades & that abominable
Scheme of Monopoly called the Orders in Council.
Yet it is an unquestionable Fact that they have
suffered and are suffering severely under the
iniquitous Restrictions which they and France
had imposed upon the Commerce of the World.
I mean to wait a little longer for Lord Wellesley’s
Reply to my Note of the 30th of April.
If it is not soon received, I hope I shall not be thought
indiscreet if I present a strong Remonstrance upon it,
& if I take Occasion in it to advert to the Affair of the
Chesapeake, & to expose what has occurred in that
Affair between Lord Wellesley & me.
I have a Letter from General Armstrong
of the 24th of last Month.
He expects no Change in the Measures of
the French Government with regard to the U. S.
I cannot, however, refrain from hoping that
we shall have no War with that Government.
We have a sufficient Case for War against both
France & England—an equal Case against both
in point of Justice, even if we take into the
Account the recent Violence of the former.
But looking to Expediency, which should never
be lost Sight of, I am not aware of any
Considerations that should induce us in actual
Circumstances to embark in a War with France.
I have so often troubled you on this Topic
that I will not venture to stir it again.
Before I conclude this Letter, I beg your permission to
mention a Subject in which I have a personal Interest.
I am told and, indeed, have partly seen, that I am
assailed with great Acrimony & Perseverance
in some of the American Newspapers.
It is possible that increasing Clamor, though it
can give me no Concern, may make it convenient
that I should be very soon recalled; and it certainly
will not be worthwhile to make a point of keeping
me here for any Time however short, if many
persons in America desire that it should be otherwise.
I can scarcely be as useful to our Country as I ought to be
under such Circumstances, and I have really no Wish to
continue for any purpose looking to my own Advantage.
If I consulted my personal Interest merely, I should
already have entreated your permission to return.
The Disproportion between my unavoidable Expenses
& my Salary has ruined me in a pecuniary Sense.
The Prime of my Life is passing away in barren
Toil & Anxiety, and while I am sacrificing myself
and my Family in the public Service abroad, ill-disposed
or silly People are sacrificing my Reputation at Home.
My affectionate Attachment to you need not be mentioned.
If its Sincerity is not already manifest,
Time only can make it so & to that I appeal.
But by seeking to remain in office under you,
against the Opinion of those whose Remonstrances
will at least be loud and troublesome, if they are
not reasonable and just, I should show a Want
of all Concern for your Character & Quiet.
I do not seek it therefore.
On the contrary I pray you most earnestly to recall me
immediately (the Manner of it would I am sure be kind)
if you find it in any Way expedient to do so.
Believe me, I shall go back to my Profession with
a cheerful Heart and with a Recollection of your
unvarying Kindness which nothing can ever impair.
I should, indeed, look forward to Retirement
from official Station with the deepest Sorrow,
if I supposed that, in parting with me as a Minister,
you were to part with me also as a Friend.
But the Friend will remain—not for a Season only
but always—and be assured that, though you will
have many abler Friends, you can have none upon
whose Truth & Zeal you may more confidently rely.
In a Word—I do not at this Moment request my Recall;
but I shall receive it without Regret, if you with better
Means of judging than I can have, should think it advisable.
That I should remain here much longer is hardly possible;
but I flatter myself that in forbearing at present
to ask your Consent to my Return,
I do not lose Sight of the public Good.
This is a very long Letter and full of Egotism—but it will
have an indulgent Reader, and will I know be excused.17
The envoy John Armstrong left Paris on September 12,
and this information reached Madison on the 25th.
On September 23 the West Florida convention army
stormed the garrison
at Baton Rouge, and three days later
they declared West Florida an independent Republic.
Eleven years later Gallatin learned of Napoleon’s Trianon Decree
from September 1810 which invoked the Berlin and Milan decrees
against American ships discharging their cargoes in French ports
without obtaining an imperial license.
Armstrong learned of it on September 12,
but his sailing from France was delayed for nearly two months.
Madison in a letter on September 12
wrote to Secretary of the Treasury Gallatin,
I have received your favor of the 5th
enclosing one from Mr. Astor.
Whatever personal confidence may be due to him,
or public advantage promised by his projected
arrangement with the Russian Fur Company,
there is an obvious difficulty in furnishing the official
patronage which he wishes; whether the arrangement
be regarded as of a public or of a private character.
In the former it would require the solemnities of a Treaty;
In the latter it would be a perplexing precedent and incur
the charge of partiality: and in either is forbidden by the
proposed article depriving others under the description of
transient traders of the common right of American Citizens.
Although the Russian Government or the Fur Company
may make such a distinction of themselves, it would be
wrong for this Government to be a party to it:
first because it would favor a monopoly, contrary
to Constitutional principles, next because, in a
general & political view such distinctions from foreign
sources are justly regarded as an evil in themselves.
The most that seems admissible would be an instruction
to Mr. Adams to promote the opening of the Russian
Market generally to the Articles which are now excluded,
and which may be exported from the U.S.
To such an instruction no objection occurs;
and if it be thought advantageous may be given.18
In the fiscal year ending on September 30 revenues were $9,300,000,
but expenditures were $10,600,000.
The embargo had caused revenue from customs receipts
to fall from $16,000,000 in 1807 to $6,500,000 in 1809.
The balance in the Treasury made up $1,300,000 and also paid $6,730,000
on the national debt, and the Treasury began
the new year with a balance of $5,000,000.
Gallatin proposed a budget for 1810 that would cut military funds
for the Army and Navy in half and save $3 million.
Madison submitted it because he did not want him to resign.
Three weeks later the President asked for an increase in
military spending to a record-breaking $6,037,000.
On 15 October 1810 Thomas Jefferson wrote this letter to Madison:
Though late, I congratulate you on the revocation of
the French decrees & Congress still more; for without
something new from the belligerents, I know not what
ground they could have taken for their next move.
Britain will revoke her orders of council but continue
their effect by new paper blockades, doing in detail
what the orders did in the lump.
The exclusive right to the sea by conquest is the principle
she has acted on in petto, though she dared not yet avow it.
This was to depend on the events of the war.
I rejoice however that one power has got out of our way,
& left us a clear field with the other.
Another circumstance of congratulation
is the death of Cushing.
The Nation ten years ago declared its will for a change
in the principles of the administration of their affairs.
They then changed the two branches
depending on their will and have steadily
maintained the reformation in those branches.
The third, not dependent on them, has so long bid
defiance to their will, erecting themselves into a political
body to correct what they deem the errors of the nation.
The death of Cushing gives an opportunity
of closing the reformation by a successor
of unquestionable republican principles.
Our friend Lincoln has of course presented
himself to your recollection.
I know you think lightly of him as a lawyer;
and I do not consider him as a correct common lawyer:
yet as much so as any one which ever came,
or ever can come from one of the Eastern states.
Their system of Jurisprudence made up from the Jewish
law, a little dash of Common law, & a great mass of
original notions of their own, is a thing sui generis,
and one educated in that system can never so far
eradicate early impressions as to imbibe
thoroughly the principles of another system.
It is so in the case of other systems of which
Lord Mansfield is a splendid example.
Lincoln’s firm republicanism and known integrity
will give complete confidence to the public in
the long desired reformation of their judiciary.
Were he out of the way, I should think
Granger prominent for the place.
His abilities are greater; I have entire confidence in his
integrity, though I am sensible that John Randolph
has been able to lessen the confidence of many in him.
But that I believe he would soon reconcile to him,
if placed in a situation to show himself to the public,
as he is and not as an enemy has represented him.
As the choice must be of a New Englander to
exercise his functions for New England men,
I confess I know of none but these two characters.
Morton is really a republican but inferior
to both the others in every point of view.
Blake calls himself republican but never was one at heart.
His treachery to us under the embargo
should put him by forever.
Story & Bacon are exactly the men who deserted
us on that measure & carried off the majority.
The former is unquestionably a Tory, & both are too young.
I say nothing of professing federalists.
Granger & Morton have both been interested in Yazooism.
The former however has long been clear of it.
I have said thus much because I know you must wish
to learn the sentiments of others, to hear all, and then
do what on the whole you perceive to be best.
Does Mr. William Lee go back to Bordeaux?19
Madison wrote back to Jefferson on October 19,
I have received your favor of the 15th.
All we know of the step taken by France towards a
reconciliation with us is through the English papers
sent by Mr. Pinkney, who had not himself received
any information on the subject from General Armstrong
nor held any conversation with the British Ministry
on it at the date of his last letters.
We hope from the step the advantage at least
of having but one contest on our hands at a time.
If Great Britain repeals her orders without discontinuing
her Mock-blockades, we shall be at issue with her
on ground strong in law in the opinion of the world
and even in her own concessions.
And I do not believe that Congress will be disposed,
or permitted by the Nation to a tame submission;
the less so as it would be not only perfidious to the other
belligerent, but irreconcilable with an honorable neutrality.
The Crisis in West Florida, as you will see,
has come home to our feelings and our interests.
It presents at the same time serious questions as to the
Authority of the Executive and the adequacy of the
existing laws of the U. S. for territorial administration.
And the near approach of Congress might subject any
intermediate interposition of the Executive to the charge
of being premature & disrespectful, if not of being illegal.
Still, there is great weight in the considerations,
that the Country to the Perdido, being our own,
may be fairly taken possession of if it can be done
without violence, above all if there be danger of its
passing into the hands of a third & dangerous party.
The successful party at Baton Rouge have not yet made
any communication or invitation to this Government.
They certainly will call in either our Aid or that of
Great Britain, whose conduct at the Caracas gives
notice of her propensity to fish in troubled waters.
From present appearances our occupancy of West Florida
would be resented by Spain, by England, & by France,
and bring on, not a triangular but quadrangular contest.20
President Madison received in the mail on October 25 a letter
from Governor Holmes declaring the independence of West Florida
which included this:
We, the delegates of the people of this State,
have the honor to enclose to you an official copy
of their act of independence, requesting that it
may be forthwith transmitted by you to the President
of the United States with the expression of their most
confident and ardent hope that it may accord with the
policy of the Government, as it does with the safety
and happiness of the people of the United States, to
take the present Government and people of this State
under their immediate and special protection, as an
integral and inalienable portion of the United States.21
On October 27 President Madison and Secretary of State
Robert Smith issued the following proclamation:
Whereas the Territory South of the Mississippi Territory
and Eastward of the river Mississippi and extending to the
River Perdido of which possession was not delivered to
the United States in pursuance of the Treaty concluded
at Paris on the 30th April 1803 has at all times, as is well
known, been considered and claimed by them, as being
within the Colony of Louisiana conveyed by the said Treaty,
in the same extent that it had in the hands of Spain
and that it had when France originally possessed it.
And whereas the acquiescence of the United States
in the temporary continuance of the said Territory
under the Spanish Authority was not the result of any
distrust of their title, as has been particularly evinced
by the general tenor of their laws and by the distinction
made in the application of those laws between that
Territory and foreign Countries; but was occasioned by
their conciliatory views and by a confidence in the justice
of their cause; and in the Success of candid discussion
and amicable negotiation with a just and friendly power:
And whereas a satisfactory adjustment, too long delayed
without the fault of the United States has for some time
been entirely suspended by events over which they had
no control, and whereas a crisis has at length arrived
subversive of the order of things under the Spanish
Authorities whereby a failure of the United States to take
the said Territory into its possession may lead to events
ultimately contravening the views of both parties, while
in the meantime the tranquility and security of our
adjoining territories are endangered, and new facilities
given to violations of our Revenue and Commercial laws,
and of those prohibiting the introduction of Slaves:
Considering moreover that under these peculiar and
imperative circumstances a forbearance on the part of
the United States to occupy the Territory in question,
and thereby guard against the confusions and contingencies
which threaten it, might be construed into a dereliction of
their title or an insensibility to the importance of the stake:
considering that in the hands of the United States it will not
cease to be a subject of fair and friendly negotiation and
adjustment: considering finally that the Acts of Congress
though contemplating a present possession by a foreign
authority, have contemplated also an eventual possession
of the said Territory by the United States, and are
accordingly so framed as in that case to extend in
their operation to the same: Now be it known That I
James Madison, President of the United States of America,
in pursuance of these weighty and urgent considerations,
have deemed it right and requisite, that possession
should be taken of the said Territory in the
name and behalf of the United States.
William C. C. Claiborne Governor of the Orleans Territory
of which the said territory is to be taken as part,
will accordingly proceed to execute the same;
and to exercise over the said Territory the Authorities
and functions legally appertaining to his office.
And the good people inhabiting the same are
invited and enjoined to pay due respect to him
in that character to be obedient to the laws; to
maintain order; to cherish harmony; and in every
manner to conduct themselves as peaceable Citizens;
under full assurance, that they will be protected in the
enjoyment of their liberty, property and religion.22
On 29 October 1810 Madison wrote to John Armstrong in Paris,
The Consular Register of Paris has, I find,
been transmitted to the Department of State
instead of remaining in the Office there.
It has been examined with a view to that part of your
letter which supposed it to contain a Deposition meant
to implicate your name in a certain land speculation.
It does not appear that any such deposition, or any
other record, having that tendency, either makes a
part of the Register or was transmitted along with it.
Nor do the files of the Office of State
contain any correspondence on the subject.
Were the fact otherwise and the correspondence
such as you were led to believe, there would as your
recollection will suggest be a difficulty in fulfilling
your wish to have a copy of it; it being contrary to
the rule of Office established here & everywhere
to give copies of confidential communications
without the assent of the party making them.
The rule is certainly a hard one, as it may hoard up
injurious calumnies to find their way to the public
after the falsification has become impossible.
On the other hand, a disregard of such a rule, might shut
the door against information of critical importance,
which would not be given but under a pledge of secrecy.
Perhaps a refusal to receive any information on such terms
would be the soundest, as it would be the noblest policy.
The experiment however has never been made.
But if Governments shrink from such an innovation,
they ought at least from time to time to select from their
Archives & commit to the flames every deposit no longer
of public use & of a nature to injure private reputation.
Having indulged in these remarks I proceed to add
that although no communication on the subject of a land
speculation has been made by Mr. Bowdoin to the
Department of State or is now deposited there, I have
learned from Mr. Jefferson that such a communication
was made to him while he was in Office at Washington.
It appears however, that there is not in the letter of
Mr. Bowdoin a single expression implicating you in any
land speculation whatever; that the contents of the
Deposition made it proper that it should be transmitted
to this Government; and that in the Deposition itself
there is nothing that merits your attention.
I need not say that no evidence of that sort,
whatever might have been its particular complexion,
would have been permitted either by Mr. Jefferson
or myself to withdraw a particle from the perfect
confidence felt by both in your honor & integrity.
You will learn from the Department of State that although
no direct authentication of the repeal of the France decrees
has been received from you, a proclamation issues on the
ground furnished by your correspondence with Mr. Pinkney.
It is to be hoped that France will do what she is
understood to be pledged for, & in a manner that
will produce no jealousy or embarrassment here.
We hope in particular that the sequestered
property will have been restored; without which
the Executive may be charged with violating
their own instruction to you on that point.
Whether that instruction was not itself a departure
from the law & must not have been set aside in
case the repeal of the decrees had arrived with
a knowledge that France had made no satisfactory
provision as to sequestrations are questions which
it would be well to have no occasion to decide.
The course which Great Britain will take is left
by Wellesley’s pledge a matter of conjecture.
It is not improbable that the Orders in Council will
be revoked & the sham blockades be so managed
if possible, as to irritate France against our non-resistance,
without irritating this Country to the resisting point.
It seems on the whole that we shall be at issue
with Great Britain on the ground of such blockades,
and it is for us a strong ground.
You will see also the step that has been
produced by the posture of things in West Florida.
If France is wise she will neither dislike it herself,
nor promote resentment of it in any other quarter.
She ought in fact, if guided by prudence & good
information, to patronize at once a general
separation of South America from Old Spain.
This event is already decided, and the sole
question with France is whether it is to take
place under her auspices or those of Great Britain.
The latter, whether with or without the privity
of the expiring Authority at Cadiz, is taking her
measures with reference to that event;
and in the meantime is extorting commercial
privileges as the recompense of her interposition.
In this particular her avarice is defeating her interest.
For it not only invites France to outbid her,
but throws in seeds of discord which will
take effect the moment peace or safety is felt
by the party of whom the advantage is taken.
The contrary policy of the old French Government in its
commercial Treaty with the U. S. at the epoch of their
Independence was founded in a far better knowledge of
human nature and of the permanent interest of its Nation.
It merits the consideration of France also, that
in proportion as she discourages in any way a free
intercourse of the U. S. with their revolutionary
neighbors, she favors the exclusive commerce of her
rival with them; as she has hitherto favored it with
Europe by her decrees against our intercourse with it.
As she seems to be recovering from the one folly,
it may be hoped she will not fall into the other.
The ship sent on this occasion will afford you & your
family good accommodations, if you should be decided
against prolonging your important services at Paris, and a
Winter passage should not be an insuperable objection.23
On October 30 Madison wrote this letter to William Pinkney in London:
Your letter of August 13 was duly received.
Its observations on the letter & conduct of
Lord Wellesley are an interesting comment on both.
The light in which the letter was seen by many
in this Country was doubtless such as gave to
its features an exaggerated deformity.
But it was the natural effect of its contrast to the
general expectation founded on the tenor of your
private letter to Mr. Smith and on the circumstances,
which in the case of Jackson, seemed to preclude
the least delay in repairing the insults committed by him.
It is true also that the letter when viewed in its most
favorable light is an unworthy attempt to spare a
false pride on one side at the expense of just feelings
on the other, & is in every respect infinitely below
the elevation of character assumed by the British
Government & even of that ascribed to Lord Wellesley.
It betrays the consciousness of a debt
with a wish to discharge it in false coin.
Had the letter been of earlier date & accompanied
by the prompt appointment of a successor to
Jackson, its aspect would have been much softened.
But everything was rendered as offensive as possible by
evasions & delays, which admit no explanation without
supposing a double game by which they were to cheat us
into a reliance on fair promises, while they were playing
into the hands of partisans here who were turning the
delays into a triumph over their own Government.
This consideration had its weight in the decision
last communicated with respect to your
continuance at London or return to the U. S.
The personal sensibilities which your letter
expresses are far greater than I can have
merited by manifestations of esteem & confidence
which it would have been unjust to withhold.
As a proof of your partiality, they ought not
on that account to excite less of a return.
As little ought your readiness to retire from your station,
from the honorable motives which govern you to be viewed
in any other light than as a proof of the value which
attaches itself to your qualifications and services.
It is not to be denied that a good deal of dissatisfaction
has issued through the press against some of your
intercourse with the British Government.
But this could have the less influence on the Executive mind
as the dissatisfaction, where not the mere indulgence of
habitual censure is evidently the result of an honest
misconstruction of some things and an ignorance
of others; neither of which can be lasting.
I have little doubt that if your sentiments & conduct
could be seen through media not before the public
a very different note would have been heard;
and as little, that the exhibitions likely to grow out of
the questions & discussions in which you are at present
engaged will more than restore the ground taken from you.
The sole question on which your return depends,
therefore is whether the conduct of the Government
where you are may not render your longer stay
incompatible with the honor of the U. S.
The last letter of the Secretary of State has so
placed the subject for your determination;
in which the fullest confidence is felt.
Waving other depending subjects, not of recent date,
a review of the course pursued in relation to Jackson &
a successor, excites a mixture of indignation &
contempt, which ought not to be more lightly
expressed, than by your immediately substituting a
Secretary of Legend for the grade you hold; unless
the step be absolutely forbidden, by the weighty
consideration, which has been stated to you; and
which coincides with the sound policy, to which you
allude, of putting an adversary completely in the wrong.
The prevailing opinion here is that
this has already been abundantly done.
Besides the public irritation produced by the
persevering insolence of Jackson in his long stay,
& his conduct during it; there has been a constant heart
burning on the subject of the Chesapeake, and a deep &
settled indignation on the score of impressments, which
can never be extinguished without a liberal atonement for
the former and a systematic amendment of the latter.
You have been already informed that a Proclamation
would issue giving effect to the late act of Congress on the
ground of the Duke de Cadore’s letter to General Armstrong
which states an actual Repeal of the French Decrees.
The letter of Wellesley to you is a promise only,
& that in a very questionable shape; the more so
as Great Britain is known to have founded her
retaliating pretensions on the unprecedented
mode of warfare against her, evidently meaning
the exclusion of her trade from the Continent.
Even the Blockade of May 1806
rests on the same foundation.
These considerations with the obnoxious exercise of her
sham-blockades in the moment of our call for their repeal,
backed by the example of France, discourage the hope,
that she contemplates a reconciliation with us.
I sincerely wish your next communications may
furnish evidence of a more favorable disposition.
It will not escape your notice and is not undeserving
that of the British Government that the non-intercourse,
as now to be revived, will have the effect of giving a
monopoly of our exportations to Great Britain to our
own vessels in exclusion of hers; whereas in its old
form Great Britain obtained a substantial monopoly for
hers through the entrepots of Nova Scotia, East Florida &c.
She cannot therefore deprive our vessels, which may
now carry our exports directly to Great Britain of this
monopoly without refusing the exports altogether or
forcing them into difficult & expensive circuits with the
prospect of a counteracting interposition of Congress,
should the latter experiment be resorted to.
Nothing would be necessary to defeat this experiment
but to prohibit, as was heretofore contemplated—
the export of our productions to the neighboring
ports belonging to Great Britain or her friends.
The Course adopted here towards West Florida
will be made known by the Secretary of State.
The occupancy of the Territory as far as the Perdido,
was called for by the crisis there and is understood
to be within the authority of the Executive.
East Florida also is of great importance to the
U. S., and it is not probable that Congress will
let it pass into any new hands.
It is to be hoped Great Britain will not entangle
herself with us by seizing it, either with or
without the privity of her Allies in Cadiz.
The position of Cuba gives the U. S. so deep an
interest in the destiny even of that Island, that
although they might be an inactive they could not be
a satisfied spectator at its falling under any European
Government which might make a fulcrum of that position
against the commerce or security of the U. S.
With respect to Spanish America generally you
will find that Great Britain is engaged in the most
eager, and if without the concurrence of the Spanish
Authority at Cadiz, the most reproachful grasp of
political influence and commercial preferences.
In turning a provident attention to the new world,
as she loses ground in the old, her wisdom is to
be commended, if regulated by justice & good faith;
nor is her pursuit of commercial preferences,
if not seconded by insidious & slanderous means
against our competition, as are said to be employed,
to be tested by any other standard than her own interest.
A sound judgment of this does not seem to have been
consulted in the specimen given in the Treaty at
Caracas by which a preference in trade over all other
Nations is extorted from the temporary fears &
necessities of the Revolutionary Spaniards.
The policy of the French Government at the epoch
of our Independence in renouncing every stipulation
against the equal privileges of all other nations in
our trade was dictated by a much better knowledge
of human Nature and of the stable interest of France.
The Elections for the next Congress are nearly over.
The result is another warning against a reliance
on the strength of a British party, if the British
Government be still under a delusion on that subject.
Should France effectually adhere to the ground
of a just & conciliatory policy, & Great Britain bring
the U. S. to issue on her paper Blockades; so strong
is this ground in right & opinion here & even in the
commitment of all the great leaders of her party here,
that Great Britain will scarce have an advocate left.24
Harry Toulmin was a Unitarian minister who became a
Superior Court Judge in the Mississippi Territory.
On 31 October 1810 from Fort Stoddert
he wrote this letter to President Madison:
I have just been honored with your favor of
September 5th which has been so long on the road
in consequence of its going round by way of Natchez.
I am gratified to find that my communication to you
was acceptable, and still more so to be able to repeat
my assurances that the expedition is at an end.
One of the leading partisans takes to himself the merit
of having induced the government to make some overtures
which he learned in the Creek nation had been made to the
Spanish authorities; and has at the same time seen fit to
denounce me as a Spanish pensioner on account of the
opposition which I made to the projected enterprise.
But few I trust, however, will be disposed to give credit to
either, though I am sensible at the same time that not a
device will be left unemployed to injure me to the utmost.
Our situation here has become very interesting
not only on account of the dispositions manifested
among ourselves, but on account of the movements
among our neighbors: and I have from time to time
in letters to General Wilkinson & to Mr. Graham,
made mention of anything which I deemed important.
A crisis seems to be fast approaching
with the province of West Florida.
The utmost panic has seized the people of Mobile
on the rumor of a convention army of 1600 men being
on its way from Baton-rouge, and certain intelligence, as
they thought had brought them to this side of Pearl River.
Scouts are kept out by the government, and the people
have been packing up their valuables which some, I am
told, have actually removed to places of supposed safety.
Some of the French below the line have applied to me in
much distress to know whether it will be illegal for them to
bring their families up, and there are several accordingly
who have sought an asylum within the American limits.
Their minds however, I hope will soon be at ease,
as they will learn that an armed force coming against
them has no existence but in the fears of their rulers.
Col. Ruben Kemper, who has been introduced to me
by an old friend in the enclosure No. 1 as well as
(through a friend here) by an American officer living
near the Mississippi, comes as an agent from the
Baton-rouge convention with offers of good will &
friendship to the people in this part of the province,
where it is evident that there are none at present
engaged to act in concert with the settlements in the west.
There was a Major White joined with him
in the mission who it is said was held in esteem
among the Spaniards, but sickness on the road
occasioned his return, and Col. Kemper will not deem
it prudent to venture below the American boundary.
He will have an opportunity, however, of communicating
through the French settlers who reside near the line,
the pacific views of the convention and their desire
ultimately to unite themselves to the American government.
It is indeed supposed by well informed people that
even the Spanish officers at Mobile would give up
the country to the U. S. without any resistance.
I have seen the address of the convention to the
people of Mobile: it is altogether temperate & friendly:
but I have no idea that they will be able to form
any open party among the people, or to obtain
possession of the country by pacific means, unless
arrangements can be made to secure in the first
instance a good understanding with the Spanish officers.
Though many may wish a change,
no man will stand forward as an advocate for it.
Even the French are generally peaceable, domestic men,
who have no idea of encouraging civil commotion.
I venture to enclose the extract No. 2, but you will
observe from the conclusion that I dare not give the name:
nor should I deem it proper to send the extract itself to any
person but yourself, as the writer, having considerable
property under different governments, might feel himself
aggrieved, whatever may be the result of the present crisis.
I am the more pleased with it, as I did expect
that British predilections would have rendered him
blind to any advantages which might be enjoyed
under the American government.25
On 2 November 1810 President Madison proclaimed that
France had fulfilled the requirement of the Second Macon’s Bill No. 2,
which had become law on May 1, and that the British had three months
to revoke their edicts, or the Non-Intercourse Act of 1809
would go back into effect against the British.
This is that Proclamation:
Whereas by the fourth section of the act of Congress,
passed on the first day of May, 1810 entitled
“An act concerning the commercial intercourse between
the United States and Great Britain and France and their
dependencies and for other purposes,”
it is provided “that in case either Great Britain or France
shall, before the third day of March next, so revoke or
modify her edicts as that they shall cease to violate the
neutral commerce of the United States, which fact the
President of the United States shall declare by proclamation,
and if the other nation shall not within three months
thereafter so revoke or modify her edicts in like manner,
then the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth,
tenth and eighteenth sections of the act, entitled
’An act to interdict the commercial intercourse between
the United States and Great Britain and France and their
dependencies, and for other purposes,’
shall from and after the expiration of three months from
the date of the proclamation aforesaid, be revived and have
full force and effect, so far as relates to the dominions,
colonies and dependencies, and to the articles the growth,
produce or manufacture of the dominions, colonies and
dependencies of the nation thus refusing or neglecting to
revoke or modify her edicts in the manner aforesaid.
And the restrictions imposed by this act shall,
from the date of such proclamation, cease and be
discontinued in relation to the nation revoking or
modifying her decrees in the manner aforesaid:”
And whereas it has been officially made known to
this government that the edicts of France violating the
neutral commerce of the United States have been so
revoked as to cease to have effect on the first of the
present month: Now, therefore, I, James Madison,
President of the United States, do hereby proclaim
that the said edicts of France have been so revoked
as that they ceased on the said first day of the present
month to violate the neutral commerce of the United States;
and that, from the date of these presents, all the restrictions
imposed by the aforesaid act shall cease and be
discontinued in relation to France and her dependencies.26
On November 5 Madison issued this Presidential Proclamation in Washington:
James Madison issues a “full and entire pardon”
to all deserters from the U. S. Army and Navy
who have taken shelter in West Florida and who,
desirous of returning to duty, “shall within Six months
from the date hereof surrender themselves to the
Commanding officer of any military post … or to
any Commanding officer in the Naval service.”27
Madison in a letter to Benjamin Rush on November 6 wrote,
I thank you for the “Report” on the African Trade,
accompanying your favor of the 29th.
We have been for some time aware of the evasions
of the Act of Congress on this subject by means
of foreign flags &c procured by our Citizens.
But it is very difficult to bring the offenders to justice here;
and the foreign Governments with which the task lies,
have not employed their authority for the purpose.
If any mode by which our laws could be made effectual,
could be devised, there is no reason to distrust the
disposition of Congress to adopt it.
The disposition of the Executive will appear
in the enclosed paper of which it is not wished
that any public use should be made.
It is an answer to Mr. Pinkney, who had been
applied to by Mr. Stephen who was Counsel for
the Captors in the very case decided as in the
printed Sheet which came with the pamphlet.28
The Republican Party did well in the 1810 elections which were
held in the different states between 24 April 1810 and 2 August 1811.
Republicans gained 13 more seats in the House of Representatives
while the Federalists lost one seat in the Senate.
The 12th United States Congress would hold its first session on 4 November 1811.
John Randolph opposed spending more on the military as a waste of money,
and $750,000 was authorized for harbor fortifications.
Emperor Napoleon in March had issued the Rambouillet decree
to justify France’s seizing of ships that entered French ports,
and he made it retroactive to include 150 American ships the French had captured.
This news reached Madison on October 25, and two days later
he had claimed the West Florida territory west of the Perdido River
for the United States based on the 1803 Louisiana Purchase treaty with France.
Governor Claiborne was to take possession and govern it as part of the Orleans Territory.
Claiborne immediately left Washington DC and went to Washington,
the capital of the Mississippi Territory where he distributed
the proclamation in English, French, and Spanish.
Congress and the public did not even learn about this executive action
until 5 December 1810 when Madison explained it and this proclamation
against England in his Second Annual Message to the Congress:
The embarrassments which have prevailed in
our foreign relations, and so much employed the
deliberations of Congress, make it a primary duty
in meeting you to communicate whatever may
have occurred in that branch of our national affairs.
The Act of the last Session of Congress “concerning
the commercial intercourse between the United States,
and Great Britain and France and their dependencies”
having invited in a new form a termination of their Edicts
against our neutral commerce, copies of the Act were
immediately forwarded to our Ministers at London and
Paris with a view that its object might be within the
early attention of the French and British Governments.
By the communication received through our
Minister at Paris it appeared that a knowledge
of the Act by the French Government was
followed by a declaration that the Berlin and
Milan Decrees were revoked and would cease
to have effect on the first day of November ensuing.
These being the only known Edicts of France
within the description of the Act, and the revocation
of them, being such that they ceased at that date to
violate our neutral commerce; the fact as prescribed
by law was announced by a Proclamation bearing
date the second day of November.
It would have well accorded with the conciliatory views,
indicated by this proceeding on the part of France to
have extended them to all the grounds of just complaint,
which now remain unadjusted with the United States.
It was particularly anticipated that, as a further
evidence of just dispositions towards them,
restoration would have been immediately made
of the property of our Citizens seized under a
misapplication of the principle of reprisals, combined
with a misconstruction of a law of the United States.
This expectation has not been fulfilled.
From the British Government no communication
on the subject of the Act has been received.
To a communication from our Minister at London
of the revocation by the French Government of its
Berlin and Milan Decrees; it was answered, that the
British System would be relinquished as soon as the
repeal of the French Decrees should have actually
taken effect, and the commerce of neutral nations
have been restored to the condition in which it stood,
previously to the promulgation of those decrees.
This pledge, although it does not necessarily
import, does not exclude the intention of
relinquishing along with the orders in Council
the practice of those novel Blockades which have
a like effect of interrupting our neutral commerce.
And this further justice to the United States is the
rather to be looked for inasmuch as the Blockades
in question, being not more contrary to the established
law of nations, than inconsistent with the rules of
Blockade, formally recognized by Great Britain herself,
could have no alleged basis other than the plea of
retaliation, alleged as the basis of the orders in Council.
Under the modification of the original orders
of November 1807 into the orders of April 1809,
there is, indeed, scarcely a nominal distinction
between the orders and the Blockades.
One of those illegitimate blockades, bearing date in May
1806, having been expressly avowed to be still unrescinded,
and to be in effect comprehended in the orders in Council,
was too distinctly brought within the purview of the Act of
Congress, not to be comprehended in the explanation
of the requisites to a compliance with it.
The British Government was accordingly apprized
by our Minister near it that such was the light
in which the subject was to be regarded.
On the other important subjects depending
between the United States and that Government,
no progress has been made from which an early
and satisfactory result can be relied on.
In this new posture of our relations with those Powers,
the consideration of Congress will be properly turned to
a removal of doubts which may occur in the exposition;
and of difficulties in the execution of the Act above cited.
The commerce of the United States with the
North of Europe, heretofore much vexed by licentious
cruisers, particularly under the Danish flag, has latterly
been visited with fresh and extensive depredations.
The measures pursued in behalf of our injured Citizens, not
having obtained justice for them, a further and more formal
interposition with the Danish Government, is contemplated.
The principles which have been maintained
by that Government in relation to neutral
commerce, and the friendly professions of
His Danish Majesty towards the United States,
are valuable pledges in favor of a successful issue.
Among the events growing out of the state of
the Spanish Monarchy, our attention was imperiously
attracted to the change, developing itself in that
portion of West Florida, which though of right
appertaining to the United States, had remained
in the possession of Spain; awaiting the result
of negotiations for its actual delivery to them.
The Spanish Authority was subverted; and a situation
produced, exposing the Country to ulterior events, which
might essentially affect the rights and welfare of the Union.
In such a conjuncture I did not delay the interposition
required for the occupancy of the Territory West of
the River Perdido; to which the title of the United States
extends, and to which the laws provided for the
Territory of Orleans are applicable.
With this view the Proclamation of which a copy
is laid before you, was confided to the Governor
of that Territory to be carried into effect.
The legality and necessity of the course pursued,
assure me of the favorable light in which it will present
itself to the Legislature; and of the promptitude, with
which they will supply, whatever provisions may be due,
to the essential rights and equitable interests of the people,
thus brought into the bosom of the American family.
Our Amity with the Powers of Barbary, with the
exception of a recent occurrence at Tunis, of which
an explanation is just received, appears to have been
uninterrupted and to have become more firmly established.
With the Indian Tribes also the peace and friendship of the
United States are found to be so eligible, that the general
disposition to preserve both continues to gain strength.
I feel particular satisfaction in remarking that an
interior view of our country presents us with grateful
proofs of its substantial and increasing prosperity.
To a thriving agriculture and the improvements
related to it is added a highly interesting extension
of useful manufactures; the combined product of
professional occupations and of household industry.
Such, indeed, is the experience of economy,
as well as of policy in these substitutes for supplies,
heretofore obtained by foreign Commerce, that in a
national view, the change is justly regarded as of itself
more than a recompense for those privations and losses
resulting from foreign injustice, which furnished the
general impulse required for its accomplishment.
How far it may be expedient to guard the infancy
of this improvement in the distribution of labor by
regulations of the Commercial tariff is a subject which
cannot fail to suggest itself to your patriotic reflections.
It will rest with the consideration of Congress also,
whether a provident as well as fair encouragement,
would not be given to our navigation by such regulations,
as will place it on a level of competition with foreign
vessels, particularly in transporting the important
and bulky productions of our own Soil.
The failure of equality and reciprocity in the existing
regulations on this subject operates in our ports as
a premium to foreign competitors; and the
inconvenience must increase, as these may be
multiplied under more favorable circumstances
by the more than countervailing encouragements now
given them by the laws of their respective Countries.
While it is universally admitted that a well instructed
people alone can be permanently a free people;
and while it is evident that the means of diffusing and
improving useful knowledge form so small a proportion
of the expenditures for national purposes, I cannot
presume it to be unseasonable to invite your attention to
the advantages of super-adding, to the means of Education
provided by the several States, a Seminary of Learning,
instituted by the national Legislature within the limits of
their exclusive jurisdiction; the expense of which might be
defrayed or reimbursed out of the vacant grounds which
have accrued to the Nation within those limits.
Such an Institution, though local in its legal character,
would be universal in its beneficial effects.
By enlightening the opinions, by expanding the patriotism,
and by assimilating the principles the sentiments and the
manners of those who might resort to this Temple of
Science to be redistributed in due time through every part
of the community; sources of jealousy and prejudice would
be diminished, the features of national character would be
multiplied, and greater extent given to Social harmony.
But above all a well constituted Seminary in the center of
the nation is recommended by the consideration that the
additional instruction emanating from it would contribute
not less to strengthen the foundations than to adorn the
structure of our free and happy system of Government.
Among the commercial abuses still committed under
the American flag and leaving in force my former
reference to that subject, it appears that American
Citizens are instrumental in carrying on a traffic in
enslaved Africans equally in violation of the laws of
humanity and in defiance of those of their own Country.
The same just and benevolent motives which
produced the interdiction in force against this
criminal conduct will doubtless be felt by Congress
in devising further means of suppressing the evil.
In the midst of uncertainties necessarily connected
with the great interests of the United States,
prudence requires a continuance of our
defensive and precautionary arrangements.
The Secretary of War and Secretary of the Navy
will submit the statements and estimates which
may aid Congress in their ensuing provisions
for the land and naval forces.
The statements of the latter will include a view of the
transfers of appropriations in the naval expenditures
and the grounds on which they were made.
The fortifications for the defense of our
maritime frontier have been prosecuted
according to the plan laid down in 1808.
The works with some exceptions are
completed and furnished with ordnance.
Those for the security of the City of New York,
though far advanced towards completion,
will require a further time and appropriation.
This is the case with a few others
either not completed or in need of repairs.
The improvements in quality and quantity made
in the manufactory of Cannon; and of small arms,
both at the public Armories and private factories,
warrant additional confidence in the competency
of these resources for supplying the public exigencies.
These preparations for arming the Militia, having thus far
provided for one of the objects contemplated by the power
vested in Congress with respect to that great Bulwark of
the public safety; it is for their consideration, whether
further provisions are not requisite for the other
contemplated objects of organization and discipline.
To give to this great mass of physical and moral force
the efficiency which it merits and is capable of receiving,
it is indispensable that they should be instructed and
practiced in the rules by which they are to be governed.
Towards an accomplishment of this important work,
I recommend for the consideration of Congress the
expediency of instituting a system which shall in the
first instance call into the field at the public expense
and for a given time certain portions of the
commissioned and noncommissioned officers.
The instruction and discipline thus acquired would
gradually diffuse through the entire body of the Militia,
that practical knowledge and promptitude for active
service which are the great ends to be pursued.
Experience has left no doubt, either of the
necessity or of the efficacy of competent military
skill in those portions of an army in fitting it for
the final duties which it may have to perform.
The Corps of Engineers with the Military Academy
are entitled to the early attention of Congress.
The Buildings at the Seat fixed by law for the
present Academy are so far in decay,
as not to afford the necessary accommodation.
But a revision of the law is recommended principally
with a view to a more enlarged cultivation and diffusion
of the advantages of such Institutions by providing
professorships for all the necessary branches of military
instruction; and by the establishment of an additional
Academy at the Seat of Government or elsewhere.
The means by which war as well for defense as
for offense, are now carried on, render these
Schools of the more scientific operations,
an indispensable part of every adequate system.
Even among nations whose large standing armies and
frequent wars afford every other opportunity of instruction;
these establishments are found to be indispensable
for the due attainment of the branches of Military science,
which require a regular course of study and experiment.
In a Government happily without the other
opportunities, Seminaries where the elementary
principles of the art of War can be taught without
actual war and without the expense of extensive
and standing armies, have the precious advantage
of uniting an essential preparation against external
danger with a scrupulous regard to internal safety.
In no other way, probably, can a provision of equal
efficacy for the public defense be made at so little
expense or more consistently with the public liberty.
The receipts into the Treasury during the year
ending on the 30th of September last (and amounting
to more than eight Millions and a half of Dollars)
have exceeded the current expenses of the Government,
including the interest on the public debt.
For the purpose of reimbursing at the end of the year
3,750,000 dollars of the Principal, a loan as authorized
by law had been negotiated to that amount;
but has since been reduced to 2,750,000 dollars;
the reduction being permitted by the State of the Treasury;
in which there will be a balance, remaining at the end
of the year estimated at 2,000,000 dollars.
For the probable receipts of the next year and other details
I refer to statements which will be transmitted from the
Treasury; and which will enable you to judge what further
provisions may be necessary for the ensuing years.
Reserving for future occasions in the course of the
Session whatever other communications may claim your
attention, I close the present by expressing my reliance
under the blessing of Divine Providence on the judgment
and patriotism which will guide your measures at a period
particularly calling for united councils and inflexible
exertions for the welfare of our Country; and by
assuring you of the fidelity and alacrity with which
my co-operation will be afforded.29
Gov. Claiborne took possession of West Florida on December 7 but only
east to the Pearl River, and his troops reached Baton Rouge on the 10th.
He began negotiating with Spanish Governor Juan Vicente Folch
for the land between the Pearl and the Perdido rivers.
The 1810 census counted 230,760 people in Ohio and 406,511 in Kentucky.
There were 1,191,362 slaves and 186,466 free Africans
in the United States out of a population of 7,239,881 people.
In the elections the Republicans won every state in New England
except Connecticut, and Massachusetts finally rejected Senator Timothy Pickering.
The Federalists lost another seat in the Senate and were to be outnumbered 30 to 6.
In the House the Republicans gained 15 seats,
giving them 107 representatives to 36 Federalists.
The war hawks Henry Clay and Richard M. Johnson of Kentucky,
John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, and Felix Grundy of Tennessee were elected.
Clay argued they were fighting for “free trade and seamen’s rights”
which became the American motto for the war.
Notes
1. The Papers of James Madison: Presidential Series, Volume 2 1 October 1809—
2 November 1810 ed. Robert A. Rutland et al, p. 158.
2. Ibid., p. 169-171.
3. Ibid., p. 181-186.
4. Ibid., p. 191-193.
5. Ibid., p. 249-250.
6. Ibid., p. 252-253.
7. United States. Macon's Bill, Number 2. 1 May 1810 (Online).
8. Ibid., p. 347-349.
9. Ibid., p. 353.
10. Ibid., p. 388.
11. Ibid., p. 402-404.
12. Ibid., p. 432.
13. Ibid., p. 438.
14. Ibid., p. 445-446.
15. Ibid., p. 451-452.
16. Ibid., p. 460-461.
17. Ibid., p. 478-482.
18. Ibid., p. 536.
19. Ibid., p. 580-581.
20. Ibid., p. 585.
21. James Madison: The President 1809-1812 by Irving Brant, p. 184.
22. James Madison: The President 1809-1812 by Irving The Papers of James Madison:
Presidential Series, Volume 2 1 October 1809—2 November 1810, p. 595-596.
23. Ibid., p. 597-599.
24. Ibid., p. 603-605.
25. Ibid., p. 606-608.
26. Ibid., p. 612-13.
27. The Papers of James Madison: Presidential Series, Volume 3 3 November 1810—
4 November 1811 ed. J. C. A. Stagg et al, p. 2.
28. Ibid., p. 2.
29. The Papers of James Madison: Presidential Series, Volume 3, p. 49-54.