The Land We Live In Part 9

It is probable that none save Washington could have guided the nation through the perilous excitement aroused by the efforts of the French minister Genet to involve the United States in war with England and other powers. For a time many cool-headed and able men were carried away by the popular enthusiasm in favor of France, but Genet presumed too far, when he deliberately insulted and defied that national authority which the nation itself had created, and the American people rallied at length, irrespective of party, to the support of the President. France for the time, abandoned her menacing att.i.tude, only to resume it a few years later, with results disastrous to herself.

However American in feeling, it is impossible not to have some sympathy with the Indians in their struggle to retain their hunting-grounds beyond the Ohio. Savages as they were, natural right was on their side, and many of the whites opposed to them were more savage and inhuman than the worst of the redskinned barbarians. The ma.s.sacre of the Christian Indians at Gnadenhutten by a party of frontiersmen was a deed not surpa.s.sed in atrocity in the annals of any country, and far surpa.s.sing in deliberate cruelty anything charged against the Indian race. It was a pity that the actual perpetrators of that dark crime did not fall into the hands of warlike Indians, instead of the unfortunate William Crawford, the leader of a subsequent expedition, whose awful death by fire was the Indian penalty for the Moravian ma.s.sacre. The masterly ability of Little Turtle proved for years a barrier against pioneer progress, and the defeat of St. Clair and his army in 1791, left the frontiers at the mercy of the red men. This defeat was one of the most terrible ever suffered at the hands of the Indians, and aroused on the part of Washington a display of temper which showed how deeply he felt the wound inflicted on his country.

General Anthony Wayne took the place of St. Clair as commander, and further hostilities were preceded by an attempt at negotiation. It must be confessed by any impartial reader that the Indians stated their case calmly, clearly and with impressive reasoning. They demanded that Americans be removed from the northern side of the Ohio, and they averred that treaties previously signed by them to the contrary effect had been signed under misapprehension. "Brothers," said the Indians, "you have talked to as about concessions. It appears strange that you should expect any from us, who have only been defending our just rights against your invasions. We want peace. Restore to us our country, and we shall be enemies no longer." "Your answer." said the American commissioners, "amounts to a declaration that you will agree to no other boundary than the Ohio. The negotiation is, therefore, at an end." This decision was arrived at in August, 1793. Meantime the United States escaped the danger which would have been brought upon them had Genet succeeded in his schemes, and involved America in war with England and Spain, both of which countries were prepared to a.s.sist the Indians, had the Americans taken the side of France. Active hostilities were not resumed in the Northwest, however, until the summer of 1794, when General Wayne, at the head of his troops, again attempted to secure a peaceful settlement of the Indian troubles, and failing in that attacked and defeated the Indians near the rapids of the Maumee, a few miles from the Miam. Fort, which the English had established within the American territory. Little Turtle, who led the Indians, had been in favor of peace, but was overborne by more impetuous warriors. Peace soon followed, and the settlement of the Northwest proceeded for a time without interruption.

Those who regard the Indians as a lazy and thriftless race should read what General Wayne says about them: "The very extensive and highly cultivated fields and gardens show the work of many hands. The margins of these beautiful rivers appear like a continued village for a number of miles. Nor have I ever before beheld such immense fields of corn in any part of America, from Canada to Florida."

Jay's Treaty, so-called from John Jay, who acted on behalf of the United States in negotiating the measure, secured a temporary and unsatisfactory adjustment of the differences between the United States and Great Britain. The fact that Washington was willing to approve the treaty, although dissatisfied with it, is its sufficient vindication, and the agreement on the part of England to surrender the western posts was no small advantage for the United States, especially in the impression which it produced on the Indians of the decline of British and the growth of American power. The worst features of the treaty were that it restricted the commerce of the United States, so far as concerned mola.s.ses, sugar, coffee, cocoa and cotton, the last-mentioned article being already a product of the United States, and that it failed to protect the seamen on American vessels against seizure and impressment by the British. It was, taken as a whole, a humiliating compact, and in its commercial provisions an abandonment of the principle which inspired the Boston Tea Party, and for which Americans had fought in the war of independence. The mutual freedom of intercourse and internal trading, including common navigation of the Mississippi, was advantageous only to Great Britain, which country, as subsequent events showed, had not given up hope of reconquering the trans-Ohio region, and carrying British dominion from the Lakes to Mobile.

The United States had to do something, however, to show that the American Republic was not either secretly or openly an ally of the French Republic against the remainder of Europe, and while the Jay Treaty was not what Washington and the American people desired, it was all that England would agree to. As a _modus vivendi_ with our only dangerous neighbor it enabled the American people to devote to domestic development the energies which would otherwise have been expended in war, and to grasp the neutral carrying trade upon which war would have placed an embargo. England would doubtless have been gratified with any plausible excuse that would have enabled her to destroy American commerce, and to be without a rival on the Atlantic. Jay's Treaty prevented this, and England had to leave to her friends, the Barbary pirates, the work of preying on the American carrying trade in European waters.[2] These depredations were already so serious in 1794 that a bill was introduced in Congress, pa.s.sed after some opposition, and cordially approved by President Washington, providing for a force of six frigates to protect American commerce from the corsairs. These frigates did splendid service later on, not only against the pirates, but also against the French and British.

[2] As early as 1784 Lord Sheffield said in Parliament: "It is not probable that the American States will have a very free trade in the Mediterranean. It will not be to the interest of any of the great maritime powers to protect them from the Barbary States. If they know their interests they will not encourage American carriers."

The scenes which attended the close of Washington's public career were some compensation to that ever-ill.u.s.trious man for the wounds inflicted during his administration by reckless and venomous partisanship. No President of the United States was ever more fiercely and bitterly a.s.sailed than Washington. His enemies even went so far as to doom him in caricature to the fate of Louis XVI. He was accused of monarchical designs, and had to confront treachery in his Cabinet and scurrilous slanders in the public press. Yet throughout all he bore himself with patience, and never swerved from the course which he deemed best for the public weal. It should not be supposed that he was indifferent to the arrows of malice and of falsehood. On the contrary, he was extremely sensitive to them; but he never permitted himself, in public at least, to be carried away by his feelings, and no matter how strong his sentiments on any subject, his sense of justice was always supreme. In his agony upon the news of St. Clair's defeat, he denounced that general as worse than a murderer for having suffered his army to be taken by surprise; but when the burst of pa.s.sion was over he added: "General St. Clair shall have justice. I will receive him without displeasure; I will hear him without prejudice." And Washington kept his word.

Far abler pens than mine have dealt with the character of the Father of our Republic, but a few plain and original expressions on a subject never wearisome to Americans may not be out of place. Washington's chief characteristics were fort.i.tude, the sense of justice of which I have spoken, and the ability to grasp conditions and seize upon opportunities.

He was a thoroughly practical man, a strategist by instinct, fearless but not rash, possessing an impetuous temper kept within careful control, and unleashed only when, as at the battle of Monmouth, there was prudence in its vehemence. He was an excellent judge of men. The officers who owed their advancement to Washington seldom disappointed and often exceeded expectations. He was above the petty jealousy, so conspicuous in our late civil war, that would permit another general to be defeated in order to shine by contrast. He was devoted to the cause more than to winning personal reputation, and the effect of his unselfishness was that the cause triumphed with his name fixed in history as that of its leader and champion.

It is difficult to compare the military achievements of Washington with those of Old World commanders. Marlborough, Wellington and Napoleon had troops thoroughly organized, under complete military control, and held to service by iron rules which made the general always sure that his military machine would be ready for use, barring the chances of war.

Washington's forces were largely composed of militia, enlisted for short periods, many of them induced to serve by bounties, and anxious to go home and attend to their farms.[3] The soldiers, too, were shamefully neglected by Congress and by their States, and it seems wonderful that Washington should have kept them together as he did, or maintained an army at all. In this respect Washington showed genius as a military manager without parallel in history. It should not be forgotten, also, that to Washington is largely due credit for victories at which he was not present. His was the master mind which scanned the entire field, directed all operations and made the triumphs of others possible. His closing campaign, which ended in the surrender of Cornwallis, exhibited military talent of the highest order. In conception and execution it was equal to any of Napoleon's campaigns. It embraced an extent of territory, from New York to North Carolina inclusive, as extensive as the present German empire, and every movement was that of a master hand on the chess-board of war. Success without the French would have been impossible, without Greene's admirable generalship it might have been impossible, but Washington conceived and carried through to accomplishment the whole great scheme which resulted in a final and crashing blow to British hopes of subjugating America.[4]

[3] Mr. William L. Stone, the historical writer, recently published the diary of a relative who served a few months in the Revolution, and who received ten sheep for enlisting. The soldier in question appears to have been in the habit of going home whenever he felt like it to cultivate his crops.

Governor Clinton said of the militia: "They come in the morning and return in the evening, and I never know when I have them, or what my strength is."--_Letter to the New York Council of Safety._

[4] M. Barbe Marbois, who was Secretary of the French Legation in the United States during the Revolution, says of Washington: "The sound judgment of Washington, his steadiness and ability, had long since elevated him above all his rivals and far beyond the reach of envy. His enemies still labored, however, to fasten upon him, as a general, the reproach of mediocrity. It is true that the military career of this great man is not marked by any of those achievements which seem prodigious, and of which the splendor dazzles and astonishes the universe, but sublime virtues unsullied with the least stain are a species of prodigy. His conduct throughout the whole course of the war invariably attracted and deserved the veneration and confidence of his fellow-citizens. The good of his country was the sole end of his exertions, never personal glory. In war and in peace, Washington is in my eyes the most perfect model that can be offered to those who would devote themselves to the service of their country and a.s.sert the cause of liberty."

As a statesman Washington merited distinction fully equal to that gained in his military career. To him the United States were always a nation, and only as a nation could they exist. His influence was as potent in forming the Union as his military genius had been in achieving independence, and the veneration with which he was regarded abroad secured for the new nation a degree of respect in foreign cabinets, which was almost vital to its existence, and which no other American could have commanded. At home, too, he rose superior to the discord of ambitious men and of rival factions, and those who, like Edmund Randolph, attempted to belittle him, only called attention thereby to their own comparative unworthiness and insignificance, and were glad in later years to seek oblivion for their abortive folly.

In his domestic life Washington was one of the best of husbands, as he was blessed with one of the best of wives. He held slaves, and I have never been of those who claim that he regarded slavery with serious disapproval. He was too conscientious a man to have retained a single slave in his possession or under his control if his conscience did not approve the relation. That Washington favored the gradual abolition of slavery his letters leave no doubt, and especially those to John P.

Mercer and Lawrence Lewis, quoted by Washington Irving, but in the letterbook of the great Rhode Island merchant, Moses Brown, which I was allowed, some years ago, to examine, I read a letter from General Washington which, as I remember, indicated Washington's anti-slavery opinions to be more abstract than active, and conveyed distinctly the impression that he saw nothing wrong whatever in the holding of human chattels. Washington's views on slavery were those of a Southern planter of the most enlightened cla.s.s, and the provisions which he made in his will for the emanc.i.p.ation of his slaves on the decease of his wife, and for the care of those who might be unable to support themselves, showed that no color-line narrowed his sense of justice and of humanity.

The fame of Washington has not lost in brilliancy since he pa.s.sed from the world in which he acted such a providential part. Like the Phidian Zeus his proportions are all the more majestic for the distance which rounds over any venial defect. His example is as valuable to the American Republic of the present as his life-work was to the America of a century ago. As water never rises above its source, so a great nation should have a great founder, and the figure of Washington is sublime enough to be the oriflamme of a people's empire bounded only by the oceans which wash the land that he loved.

CHAPTER XXIII.

John Adams President--Jefferson and the French Revolution--The French Directory--Money Demanded from America--"Millions for Defence; Not One Penny for Tribute"--Naval Warfare with France--Capture of the Insurgent --Defeat of the Vengeance--Peace with France--Death of Washington--Alien and Sedition Laws--Jefferson President--The Louisiana Purchase--Burr's Alleged Treason--War with the Barbary States--England Behind the Pirates --Heroic Naval Exploits--Carrying War Into Africa--Peace with Honor.

The Jay treaty secured peace with England, but it was accepted as almost a declaration of war by France. The att.i.tude of the French government did not become intolerable until after the retirement of Washington from the presidency. John Adams, who succeeded Washington, belonged to the Federalist party, which supported a strong central government with aristocratic tendencies, and was opposed to the Republican party, which sympathized with the French Revolution, and whose members were, therefore, known also as "Democrats." Alexander Hamilton was the chief spirit of the Federalists and Thomas Jefferson of the Republicans. The intense Jacobinism of Jefferson's views may be judged from some of his utterances, in which he even defended the terrible September ma.s.sacres of the French Revolution. Speaking of the innocent who perished he said: "I deplore them as I should have done had they fallen in battle. It was necessary to use the arm of the people, a machine not quite so blind as b.a.l.l.s and bombs, but blind to a certain degree. A few of their cordial friends met at their hands the fate of enemies. * * * My own affections have been deeply wounded by some of the martyrs to this cause, but rather than it should have failed, I would have seen half the earth desolated; were there but an Adam and an Eve left in every country, and left free, it would be better than it is now."

The spread of these ideas shocked and alarmed conservative men, including Washington himself, Hamilton and Adams, and led to measures of restriction that were injudicious in their severity. The nation, however, united as one man, irrespective of party, to resent the intolerable insolence of the French, who a.s.sumed that they could crush America with the same ease that they subdued the petty states of Italy and Germany.

The French Directory, which had succeeded to the Terrorists in the exercise of power virtually supreme, was composed of men whose depravity we have seen shockingly ill.u.s.trated in the recently published memoirs of Barras. Its foreign policy was managed by the vulpine Talleyrand, who is accused by Barras of having extorted large sums of money from the lesser States of Europe as the price of being let alone--although it is extremely probable that Barras and others of the Directory shared in these ill-gotten funds. Talleyrand tried to extort similar tribute from America, demanding that a douceur of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars be put at his disposal for the use of the Directory, and a large loan made by America to France. "Millions for defence--not one penny for tribute!" was the cry that went up from the American people when this infamous proposition was made known.

Washington was summoned from his retirement to take command of the American army, a Secretary of the Navy was added to the President's Cabinet--Benjamin Stoddart, of Georgetown, D. C., being the first--and the new American navy was authorized to retaliate upon France for outrages committed upon American shipping. A vigorous naval warfare followed, in which the new American frigates proved more than a match for the French. The American Constellation, forty-eight guns, after a sharp engagement, captured the French frigate Insurgent, forty guns. It is really amusing to note the tone of injured innocence in which Captain Barreaut, of the Insurgent, who had himself captured the American cruiser Retaliation but a short time before, reports to his government his "surprise on finding himself fought by an American frigate after all the friendship and protection accorded to the United States!" "My indignation," he adds, "was at its height." It soon cooled off, however, under the pressure of broadsides from the Constellation, and Captain Barreaut was glad to surrender. The second frigate action of the war was between the Constellation and the Vengeance, the former fifty guns, the latter fifty-two. The Frenchman, badly beaten, succeeded in making his escape. The battle between the American frigate Boston and the French corvette Berceau was one of the most gallant of the struggle, the Berceau fighting until resistance was hopeless. American merchantmen also showed the French that they could defend themselves, and one of Moses Brown's ships, the Anne and Hope, sailed into Providence from a voyage to the West Indies, bearing in her rigging the marks of conflict with a French privateer, whom the merchantman had bravely repulsed. During the two years and a half of naval war with France eighty-four armed French vessels, nearly all of them privateers, were captured, and no vessel of our navy was taken by the enemy, except the Retaliation. This was not the kind of tribute the French government had expected, and a treaty of peace, which entirely sustained the position of the United States, was ratified in February, 1801.

The ill.u.s.trious Washington, who fortunately had not been required to take the field against America's ancient allies, died December 14, 1799, at Mount Vernon, deeply mourned by all his countrymen, and honored even by the former enemies of American independence. I will only repeat, with Washington Irving, that "with us his memory remains a national property, where all sympathies throughout our widely extended and diversified empire meet in unison. Under all dissensions and amid all the storms of party, his precepts and example speak to us from the grave with a paternal appeal; and his name--by all revered--forms a universal tie of brotherhood--a watchword of our Union."

While the nation heartily sustained the government in the conflict with France the enactment of the Alien and Sedition Laws, which abridged American liberty and the freedom of speech and of the press, was generally resented by the people. The public indignation which these laws aroused resulted in the banishment of the Federalist party from power, and the election of the great Republican--or Democrat--Thomas Jefferson, as President in 1800, with Aaron Burr as Vice-President. Jefferson was the first President inaugurated in the city of Washington. The leading features of his administration were the Louisiana Purchase, the Burr conspiracy and the war with the Barbary States--the first alone sufficient to make Jefferson's presidency the most memorable between that of Washington and Abraham Lincoln.

Jefferson's foresight in the Louisiana Purchase appears all the grander when we consider the ignorance which prevailed regarding the magnificent Pacific region up to the birth of a generation which is still in middle life. The Louisiana Purchase was the second great gift of France to America, and as the first came to us because the French hated and desired to weaken England, so the second came because Napoleon feared that Louisiana would fall into the hands of England. It should be remembered that the Louisiana Purchase included not only the now flourishing State at the mouth of the Mississippi, but also Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Oregon and probably the two Dakotas. It meant the control of the Mississippi and the rescue of that great artery of American commerce forever from foreign dominion. France had acquired this vast property from Spain in 1800. The Amiens Treaty of 1802, to which France and England were the princ.i.p.al parties, was short lived, and for some time before the new rupture Napoleon saw that it would be his best policy to concentrate his strength in Europe, and not endeavor to defend distant possessions in America. At the same time it was evident to President Jefferson that the continued occupation of the city of New Orleans by a foreign power was a menace to American interests in the rapidly growing West. The President therefore instructed Robert R.

Livingston, the American Minister to Paris, to propose to Napoleon the cession to the United States of New Orleans and adjoining territory, sufficient to secure the free navigation of the Mississippi. James Monroe, American Minister to England, was a.s.sociated with Livingston in the negotiations. The American representatives were surprised and elated upon learning from M. Barbe-Marbois, Napoleon's Minister of Finance, that the First Consul was ready to dispose of all Louisiana to the United States. Barbe-Marbois conducted the negotiations on behalf of France; both parties were anxious to arrive at a settlement before the English should have an opportunity to attack New Orleans, and on April 30, 1803, the treaty was signed by which the United States, for the sum of $15,000,000, came into possession of an immense territory extending from the North Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico. The loan necessary was negotiated through the celebrated house of Hope, of Amsterdam, the money was paid to France, and the United States entered upon its vast estate.

The very next year President Jefferson sent out the expedition of Lewis and Clark to the headwaters of the Columbia River, and caused a complete survey to be made to its mouth. This river had been discovered in 1792, by Captain Robert Gray, a native of Tiverton, Rhode Island, and a famous navigator, who sailed in a ship fitted out by Boston merchants. Had Jefferson's energetic action been followed up with equal vigor by his successors we would never have had the Oregon boundary dispute, and Marcus Whitman would never have felt summoned to take that famous ride so worthily chronicled by Oliver W. Nixon.

With Aaron Burr's alleged treason I will deal very briefly. It will always be a disputed point whether that restless and unprincipled and yet gifted person plotted to alienate territory of the United States, or only to play the part of a Northman in territory belonging to Spain. Admitting Burr to be innocent of designs against the United States, he was nevertheless guilty of quasi-treason if he schemed to erect a separate government within Spanish possessions to which the American Republic was already heir apparent. The murder of Alexander Hamilton by Burr under the forms of a duel, which preceded his mysterious expedition in the southwest, and his subsequent attempt to claim British allegiance on the ground that he had been a British subject before the Revolution, were other extraordinary incidents in the career of a man in whom distinguished talents were utterly without the anchor of morality.

No war in which the United States has been engaged witnessed more heroic deeds than that with the Barbary States. It was a struggle in which the youngest of civilized nations met the semi-barbarous masters of Northern Africa, the heirs of Mahomet and conquerors of the Constantines. Attended by the loss of some precious lives, which were deeply mourned and are gratefully remembered, the chastis.e.m.e.nt of the corsairs proved excellent schooling for the more serious war with Great Britain. The struggle with the pirates was largely due to the hostile influence exerted by England with a view to the destruction of American commerce. In 1793 the British government actually procured a truce between Algiers and Portugal, in order that the Algerians might have free rein in preying upon American and other merchantmen, and it may be said that piracy in the Mediterranean was under British protection. The American people for a time paid the tribute which the pirates demanded, but at length revolted against the indignity. The war began with disaster. The American frigate Philadelphia, Captain William Bainbridge, ran on a reef in the harbor of Tripoli, and all on board were made prisoners. The Bashaw held his captives for ransom, and treated them sometimes with indulgence and at other times with severity, as he thought best for his interests. It should not be forgotten by the American people that Mr. Nissen, the Danish consul, devoted himself a.s.siduously to the welfare of the prisoners, and was instrumental in many ways in a.s.sisting the American cause, while Captain Bainbridge also managed to give most valuable information to Captain Edward Preble, in command of the American squadron.

One suggestion made by Captain Bainbridge was that the Philadelphia, which the Tripolitans had succeeded in raising, should be destroyed at her anchorage in the harbor. The youthful Lieutenant Decatur headed this perilous enterprise. With the officers and men under his command, including Lieutenant James Lawrence and others afterward distinguished in American naval history, Decatur entered the harbor at night in a small vessel or "ketch" called the Mastico, disguised as a trader from Malta.

The watchword was "Philadelphia," and strict orders were given not to discharge any firearms, except in great emergency. A challenge from the Tripolitans on the Philadelphia was met by a statement from the Maltese pilot that the Mastico had just arrived from Malta, had been damaged in a gale, and lost her anchors, and desired to make fast to the frigate's cables until another anchor could be procured. The Turks lowered a boat with a hawser, intending to secure the ketch to their stern, instead of to the cables, and the Americans accepted the hawser, intimating in broken Italian that they would do as desired. At the same time the Americans made fast to the Philadelphia's fore chains, and a strong pull by the men, who were mostly lying down in order to remain unseen by the Turks, swung the ketch alongside the frigate. One of the Turks looking over the side saw the men hauling on the line, and sent up the cry--"Americano!"

The Turks succeeded in severing the line, but too late. The Americans sprang for the Philadelphia's deck and charged upon the astonished enemy.

In ten minutes from the appearance of the first American on deck the vessel was in our hands. Combustibles were then pa.s.sed from the ketch, and the Philadelphia was set on fire. While the Americans safely made their escape the burning frigate lighted up the harbor, and her shotted guns boomed warning to the Bashaw of what he might yet expect from American courage and daring. Of the Tripolitans on board the Philadelphia many doubtless perished, and some swam ash.o.r.e. Only one prisoner was taken, a wounded Tripolitan, who swam to the ketch, and whose life was spared, notwithstanding strict orders not to take prisoners.

The Bashaw treated his captives more rigorously than ever, after this splendid exploit, fearing apparently that they might rise and capture his own castle--a fear not without foundation, as a rising with that object was for some time contemplated. The ketch in which Decatur made his daring and successful expedition was christened the Intrepid, and fitted up as a floating mine with the purpose of sending her into the harbor, and exploding her in the midst of the Tripolitan shipping. It was an enterprise likely to be attended by the destruction of all engaged in it, but volunteers were not lacking. Master-Commandant Richard Somers, Decatur's bosom friend, was in charge and Midshipman Henry Wadsworth, uncle of the poet Longfellow, was second in command. Midshipman Joseph Israel also managed to get on the ketch un.o.bserved, and was permitted to remain. The crew consisted of ten seamen from the Nautilus and the Const.i.tution, all volunteers. The fate of these gallant men was never known, except that it is certain that they all perished upon the explosion of the Intrepid. Bodies found mangled beyond recognition were unquestionably the remains of these heroes, and were buried on the beach outside the town of Tripoli.

The attack was conducted with unceasing vigor, not only on sea, but on land, the Americans literally carrying the war into Africa by inciting Hamet, the deposed Bashaw of Tripoli, to attack the brother who had usurped his throne. William Eaton, the American consul at Tunis, led Hamet's army, and with the cooperation of the fleet, made a successful attack upon Derne, the capital of the richest province of Tripoli. The loss of this important fortress brought the reigning Bashaw to terms, and he signed a treaty giving up all claims to tribute, and releasing the American prisoners on payment of sixty thousand dollars. A most advantageous peace was likewise dictated to the Bey of Tunis, who had also been induced by English influences to a.s.sume a menacing att.i.tude toward the Americans, and the schemes of Great Britain to prevent, through the agency of Barbary pirates, the growth of American commerce, were disappointed.

CHAPTER XXIV.

French Decrees and British Orders in Council--Damage to American Commerce--The Embargo--Causes of the War of 1812--The Chesapeake and the Leopard--President and Little Belt--War Declared--Mr. Astor's Messenger --The Two Navies Compared--American Frigate Victories--Const.i.tution and Guerriere--United States and Macedonian--Const.i.tution and Java--American Sloop Victories--The Shannon and Chesapeake--"Don't Give Up the Ship."

The Barbary pirates had been brought to terms, but American commerce was being severely handled between French decrees and British orders in council. England had declared a blockade of all the coasts of Europe under the control of France, and Napoleon from his camp at Berlin and his palace at Milau retaliated by making British products contraband of war and subjecting to confiscation all vessels destined for British ports.

Between these two mighty millstones the American carrying trade was sorely ground, and conditions were made far worse by the very means which the American government, in its comparative impotency, adopted to compel redress. The embargo was intended to inflict such injury on both France and England as to drive them into a recognition of America's rights as a neutral. Its only serious effect was to inflict an almost fatal wound on American commerce, and the repeal of the first embargo came too late to undo the injury it had done. It was not as clearly apparent then as now that all restrictions on exportation chiefly injure the nation which imposes them. The embargo played into the hands of the British by effecting through our own agency what England had vainly sought to accomplish through others. England commanding every sea with her fleets suffered but slight inconvenience by the withdrawal of American shipping from her ports, while Americans suffered most severely.

The British blockade of continental Europe would not, however, have led to the conflict which broke out in 1812. Other aggressions, offensive to American independence, and in grievous violation of American national rights, obliged Congress reluctantly to declare war, after years of irritation and provocation on the part of England. The British stopped American vessels on the high seas, and impressed American seamen into the British naval service. American merchantmen were halted in mid-ocean and deprived of the best men in their crews, who were forced to serve in the British navy.[1]