of papers relating to the foreign affairs of the country, which also engrossed the principal part of the Message. The President alludes to the course taken towards Jackson, the late English Minister. Giles, of Virginia, who yet occupied the position of a leader in the ranks of the Administration, was the author of the series of resolutions introduced into the Senate for the purpose of sustaining the course of the Executive. These resolutions passed the Senate without debate, and with nearly a unanimous vote. In the House of Representatives, the Federalists, with the aid of John Randolph and Nathaniel Macon, waged a powerful opposition, which was finally voted down, and the resolutions sustaining the course of the President passed by a handsome majority. Bitter experience had now taught the country the failure of the existing commercial restrictions we had persisted in against England and France, which were not only useless but oppressive and ruinous to American shipping. Macon alone stood out for the embargo; but the war party in and out of Congress had began to spread, with an increasing sense of the wrong and injury we had recieved from the English Government. The wealthy merchants, the large planters, indeed, all classes, had suffered severely by the embargo, which was but a substitute for the war, and had failed in every respect.

1810.

The Federal party at this time acquired some strength of position from the unpopularity of the embargo, being almost unanimously in favor of letting commerce entirely alone. The Administration party, though receding in a measure from the vigor of the old system, could not adopt the position of the Federalists.

Macon, a decided anti-war man at this time, and preferring the embargo to any other measure, rather than war, brought forward, as chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, what was known as the American Navigation Act, which required the French and British flags, borne either by private or public vessels, to be excluded from American harbors; and limiting the exportation of French and British goods to American ships, coming direct from the ports of production. This was the plan of Gallatin, and met the approbation of the President.

This bill passed the House on the 29th of January, by a vote of 73 to 52. The Federalists voted against it, as did those who advocated stronger measures. It encountered the

same opposition in the Senate, and by means of a fusion with the Federalists and some disaffected Democrats, was stricken from the bill every feature, except the repeal of the existing restrictive act, and the exclusion of armed belligerent vessels.

It was proposed by Smith, the Senator from Maryland, to substitute armed merchant-vessels, who, though a Democrat, expected co-operation from the Federalists, as he had acted with them against the bill from the Committee on Foreign Relations; but they unexpectedly came to the support of the Administration and voted down the proposition.

The bill, as sent back to the House, was violently opposed, especially by Macon and Eppes, who insinuated in very plain terms the existence of a coalition between the Federalists and some disaffected Democrats, for the purpose of embarrassing the Administration. Angry discussion took the place of calm consideration, which even reached the chamber of the cabinet, in the persons of the Secretary of State and Secretary of the Treasury.

With a view to unite the party, the amendments, along with the bill itself, were referred to a select committee. The Senate had proposed an amendment, by authorizing the arming of merchant-vessels, which was thought by Macon and his wing of the party, to be equivalent to a declaration of

war.

The committee reported adversely to the Senate's amendment, which resulted in the appointment of a committee of conference, but which could not agree; the Senate stood out in favor of its own amendment, 17 to 15, the House adhering to its original position, 66 to 58. The bill was finally lost. It was a measure of the Administration, and though but little, if anything, would have been gained by the country, yet it was to be regretted that a section of the Democratic party should be found in concert with the Federalists of that day, whose chief aim was to embarrass the Administration.

March,

1810.

The President was anxious to avert the calamities of war, and did everything in his power to bring about amicable relations. In connection with the act of March, 1809, the President was authorized by another act, "in case either Great Britain or France should, before the 1st of March following, revoke her edicts or so modify them that they would cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States, to issue a proclamation to that effect, and on the omission of the other nation to do the same thing,

the act interdicting communication with England and France, passed in 1809, should continue as to the nation refusing."

The act of Congress under which the President was authorized to proceed was soon after communicated to the French Court, in answer to which the French Minister for Foreign Affairs replied to our Minister, John Armstrong, "that the Berlin and Milan decrees were revoked," and would have no effect after the 1st of November ensuing.* Duplicity and cunning marked the character of this communication from the Duc de Cadore to General Armstrong. The President issued his proclamation to the effect that the decrees were revoked, and that the Non-intercourse Laws would be in force as regarded Great Britain, unless her orders were revoked in three months from that day.† Subsequent events proved that the Emperor of France intended to deceive our Government, and that he had no idea of revoking the decrees, unless Great Britain should also withdraw her orders in council. Our Government was lulled for a brief period only, for after the 1st of November, instead of the promised and expected revocation of the offensive decrees, our vessels were seized and held for sequestration, whilst Napoleon boasted "that the Berlin and Milan decress were the fundamental laws of his empire;" and a new Envoy, who reached Washington from France, gave notice to the Government that no remuneration would be made for the sequestered property.‡

Notice was sent to Armstrong by the French Ministry, that the vessels which had been taken, belonging to the United States, were to be sold. Our Minister, whose indolent habits. and procrastinating disposition was at length excited, replied with much force and spirit, recapitulating the outrageous conduct of France towards our Government, and the many aggressions upon American property, and at the same time pointing out the fact, that instead of retaliation for the Nonintercourse Act, when first passed, the Emperor had waited until, under a modification of it, more than one hundred vessels had been sequestrated.§ The reply of our Minister elicited but the iniquitous Rambouillet decree, which was alleged to be in retaliation of the American Non-intercourse

* Amer. Stat. Papers, vol. vii. p. 469.

Bradford, 174; Stat. Man., vol. i. p. 344.

Bradford, p. 176.

Amer. Stat. Papers, vol. vii.; Hild. Hist., vol. iii. p. 215.

Act, and ordered the sale of one hundred and thirty-two vessels, estimated, with their cargoes, to be worth eight millions of dollars; the proceeds of which were to be deposited in the Caisse d'Amortissement, or Chest of Death, as it has been translated. This remarkable and high-handed injustice made a strong impression upon the American people. Instructions were sent to Armstrong not only to require a repeal of the Berlin and Milan decrees, but satisfactory provision for the property confiscated, such pro1810. vision being an indispensable evidence of the just purpose of France towards the United States.

June,

Pinckney at this time was engaged in renewed negotiations at London, but with no better success than Armstrong at Paris; and in reference to the repeated applications on the subject of blockades, Wellesley replied that the blockade of May, 1806, had never been withdrawn, and the blockade of Venice, of July, 1807, was still in force. The British Government, though apprised of the position of Napoleon in reference to the Berlin and Milan decrees, which would have been repealed if the blockade had been removed, seemed entirely unwilling to do anything towards favoring the prospect of reconciliation towards the United States, either with herself or the French, the English diplomatic course being as unfair as that of the French, and tending equally to complicate the existing difficulties in reference to the English blockades.*

The third session of the Eleventh Congress assembled on the 3d of December; on the 5th Madison sent in his Annual Message; allusion was made to the existing difficulties in our foreign relations, but no specific recommendations. Among the political and constitutional questions of interest which attracted the attention of Congress were, besides the renewal of the bank charter, the occupation of West Florida, and the erection of Orleans Territory into a State. Nothing of importance was effected at this time in reference to the occupation of West Florida, in consequence of the abandonment by the Executive of all intention for the present, on account of the doubtfulness of our territorial right. At this time Louisiana was applying for admission into the Union as a State. The formation of a new State out of territory not originally belong

*Correspondence between Wellesley and Pinckney, Amer. Stat. Papers, vols. vii. and viii.

ing to the United States was not only novel, but of exceeding interest in its constitutional bearing, as well as its future political import. The great constitutional objection which was alleged at the time, was that new States could not be formed out of territory acquired since the adoption of the Constitution. Quincy, who had no sympathy with the Jeffersonian school of strict construction, was, nevertheless, bold and free in the use of every argument against the erection of this or any other new territory into a State. At this time, however, it is not to be disguised, that political considerations, mixed with sectional jealousy, were the strongest inducements to opposition on this question, for it was pressed exclusively by Northern members.

Quincy, who occupied a distinguished part in this debate, may properly be considered the representative of Northern feelings, when he contended that this was a violation of the Constitution, which, in its grossness and violence, would lead to a dissolution of the Union, "amicably if they might, forcibly if they must." This was the earliest indication of the doctrine of secession, which, upon its announcement, fell like an electric shock upon the Congress of the nation.

Poindexter, of Mississippi, afterwards distinguished as a Senator, but then only Territorial delegate, and feeling much interest in the argument of the distinguished member from Massachusetts, rose to a point of order, stating that no member of the House ought to be permitted to incite any portion of the people to insurrection and a dissolution of the Union.

Varnum, the Speaker, decided that Quincy was in order, no one having the right to object to the opinion that the admission of Louisiana would lead to a dissolution of the Union.*

The Speaker, however, decided that the declaration as to the duty of certain States under a certain contingency, to separate peaceably if they could, forcibly if they must, was out of order. Quincy, however, appealed from the chair, and was sustained, with the influence of some Democratic votes, by a majority of three. Quincy then proceeded to declare, "that he had uttered the statement which had so startled the House, not for agitation, but as a warning; not from hostility to the Union, but of an earnest desire to preserve it. The clause in the Constitution authorizing the

Hild. Hist. U. S., second series, vol. iii. p. 226.