Embargo Act of 1807

For more information on Embargo Act, visit Britannica.com.

From the opening of hostilities between Great Britain and France in 1803, the United States had found it difficult to steer a neutral course. Hoping to gain economic superiority, both nations attempted to restrict neutral countries from trading with the other. The United States claimed that its official policy of neutrality allowed it to engage in unmolested trade and commerce with both countries. However, although the French and British had committed occasional infractions to American shipping, the United States offered no more than casual protest over such occurrences.

That changed in 1806 when Napoleon Bonaparte issued his Berlin Decree. It declared that the French would blockade the British Isles. In reality this meant little, given the poor condition of their navy. However, Napoleon further decreed that neutral ships carrying British-made goods were subject to seizure, thus opening the way for privateers to attack American shipping. The following year, the British government responded with the Orders in Council that established a blockade on all European ports controlled by Napoleon. In addition, these Orders mandated that all neutral vessels stop in Britain and pay a transit duty if they wished to trade with any port blockaded by Britain. Later in the year, Napoleon retaliated with his Milan Decree, which authorized the seizure of any neutral vessels submitting to the British Orders in Council. This economic warfare greatly hindered the ability of the United States to conduct any meaningful trade in Europe.

The USS Chesapeake incident in June 1807 further strained American relations with Britain. The crew of the British ship Leopard fired upon the Chesapeake and boarded the ship in search of British deserters. Despite calls for war by some in Congress, President Thomas Jefferson chose to retaliate with economic sanctions. The Embargo Act, passed by Congress on 22 December 1807, was designed to punish France and Britain as well as protect American shipping from any further acts of aggression by either nation. The act forbade American ships and goods from leaving American ports except for those vessels in the coastal trade. Those who traded along the eastern seaboard had to post bond double the value of their vessel and cargo as a guarantee that the cargo would be delivered to an American port. Loopholes in the initial act allowed merchants to push the limits of legal trading, resulting in additional restrictions passed by Congress over the ensuing months to enforce compliance to the act. The restrictions culminated in the passage of the Enforcement Act of 1809, also referred to as the Giles Enforcement Act, which allowed customs officials to call out the militia to help enforce the embargo.

The embargo successfully curbed American commerce abroad. In 1807, the year the embargo was passed, the total exports for the United States reached $108 million. One year later, that number had declined to just over $22 million. New England was hit hardest by the embargo since it was a region heavily involved in international commerce. Other commercial cities, such as New York and Philadelphia, also suffered from the embargo. Overall, American trade declined by up to 75 percent for exports and 50 percent for imports. The embargo had less of an impact in the middle states and the South, where loyalty was greater to Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party. In addition, the southern economy was based more upon agricultural production than the shipping industry.

The Federalist Party, politically in control of most New England states during the years of the embargo, vigorously protested against the act on several grounds. Some accused Jefferson of exercising arbitrary powers that infringed upon the constitutional rights guaranteed to states and citizens. Many protestors harkened back to the spirit of the American Revolution, when resistance to Britain had been based upon commercial restrictions. To many Americans, the Embargo Act resembled the restrictions of trade placed upon the American colonies in the 1760s (Townsend Duties) and 1774 (Coercive Acts) by the British government. Since they and their forebears had protested those acts in the generation prior, they felt free to protest the Embargo Act as another injustice that needed repealing. Some also criticized the act for having no terminus, implying that the embargo could go on for years since the Embargo Act did not specify a termination date. Yet others suggested that only a stronger navy, not an embargo, would prevent future violations by foreign powers. Finally, many Federalists believed that Jefferson's policy had evolved out of his bias toward the French and, conversely, his distaste for the British.

By the end of 1808, resistance to the Embargo Act had grown significantly across the nation because of increasing financial loss. Some New England politicians hinted that if the embargo was not lifted, it would be the duty of states and individuals to nullify such a damaging law. Smuggling dramatically increased, particularly across the Canadian border. From a practical standpoint, the embargo appeared to be a failure because neither France nor Britain backed down from their original decrees curtailing neutral shipping. Although Jefferson continued to insist that the embargo would eventually work, Congress thought otherwise, and on 1 March 1809, the Embargo Act was replaced with the Nonintercourse Act, which reopened American ports to trade with all nations except Britain and France.

Bibliography

Hickey, Donald R. The War of 1812: The Forgotten Conflict. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1989. Effectively puts the Embargo Act into greater context.

Sears, Louis. Jefferson and the Embargo. 1927. Reprint, New York: Octagon, 1966.

Spivak, Burton. Jefferson's English Crisis: Commerce, Embargo, and the Republican Revolution. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1979.

—Keith Pacholl

Britain and France were at war, and American commerce was caught in the crossfire. President Thomas Jefferson sought to protect American life and shipping and to pressure the warring nations by suspending commerce. The Embargo Act of 1807 forbade all international trade to and from American ports. In January 1808, the embargo was extended to inland waters and land commerce, halting a burgeoning trade with Canada. The daring attempt to use economic pressure in a world at war was not successful. Britain and France stood firm. Enforcement was difficult, especially in New England, where merchants disliked the program. When Congress, against much opposition, passed an act to make enforcement more rigid the following year, resistance approached the point of rebellion-again especially in New England. On March 1, 1809, the embargo was superseded by the Nonintercourse Act. This allowed resumption of all commercial trade except with Britain and France.

A legislative measure enacted by Congress in 1807 at the behest of PresidentThomas Jefferson that banned trade between U.S. ports and foreign nations.

The Embargo Act was intended to use economic pressure to compel England and France to remove restrictions on commercial trading with neutral nations that they imposed in their warfare with each other. Napoleon decreed under his Continental system that no ally of France or any neutral nation could trade with Great Britain, in order to destroy the English economy. In retaliation, England caused a blockade of the northern European coastline, affecting nations that had remained neutral in the dispute between France and England. These vindictive measures hurt neutral American traders, prompting Congress to take action to safeguard the economic interests of the United States. The first enactment was the Nonimportation Act of 1806 (2 Stat. 379), which prohibited the import of designated English goods to stop the harsh treatment of American ships caught running the blockade. The Embargo Act of 1807 (2 Stat. 451) superseded this enactment and expanded the prohibition against international trade to all nations. A later amendment in 1809 (2 Stat. 506) extended the ban from American ports to inland waters and overland transactions, thereby stopping trade with Canada, and mandated strict enforcement of its provisions.

The American public opposed the act, particularly those segments dependent upon international trade for their livelihoods. This opposition eventually led to the enactment of the Non-Intercourse Act (2 Stat. 528 [1809]), which superseded the stringent provisions of the Embargo Act. Under that act, only trade with England and France was proscribed, but the measure was ineffectual.

Subsequently, in 1810, Nathaniel Macon proposed a measure, called Macon's Bill No. 2, which Congress enacted despite solid Federalist opposition, that empowered the president to resume commerce with the warring nation that lifts its restrictions on neutral trade.

Origins of The War of 1812
Chesapeake-Leopard Affair
Orders in Council (1807)
Embargo Act of 1807
Non-Intercourse Act
Macon's Bill Number 2
Tecumseh's War
Henry letters
War Hawks
Rule of 1756
Monroe-Pinkney Treaty
Little Belt Affair

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. (November 2008)

The Embargo Act of 1807 was a bill that banned trade between the United States of America and other nations. The bill also prevented any ships from leaving American ports thus hindering exploration efforts. It was created at the request of President Thomas Jefferson in an attempt to prevent American involvement in the Napoleonic Wars. The bill proved unpopular and unenforceable and was repealed in 1808.

Contents 1 Background 2 History 2.1 1807 2.2 1808 2.2.1 January 8 2.2.2 March 12 2.2.3 April 25 2.3 Aftermath 3 Notes 4 References

Background

On June 21, 1807, in an event known as the Chesapeake-Leopard Affair, the American frigate USS Chesapeake was fired upon and was boarded near Norfolk by the British warship HMS Leopard. Three Americans were killed and 18 wounded in the battle. The British impressed three American seamen and one confirmed British deserter: Jenkin Ratford, who had deserted from HMS Halifax. The United States became outraged and demanded immediate action; consequently, President Jefferson issued a proclamation ordering all British ships out of American waters, later enacting the Embargo Act.^[1].

History

1807

On December 22, 1807, in response to British impressment and other aggressive behavior towards the United States, Congress passed a new Embargo Act. This prohibited trade with all other countries, a model version of the subsequent Non-importation act of 1809. The Embargo Act was aimed at American shippers and their vessels. The new law required, among other things, that:

1. American vessels were prohibited from landing in any foreign port unless specifically authorized by the president himself, who, at the time, was Jefferson.
2. Trading vessels were now required to post a bond of guarantee equal to the value of both the ship and its cargo, in order to ensure compliance with the law.^[2]

The plan ended up being a financial disaster seeing that the British were still able to export goods to America. Jefferson's Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin was against the entire notion, foreseeing (correctly, as it turned out) the nightmare of trying to enforce such a policy, not to mention the public's reaction. "As to the hope that it may...induce England to treat us better," wrote Gallatin to Jefferson shortly after the bill had become law, "I think is entirely groundless...government prohibitions do always more mischief than had been calculated; and it is not without much hesitation that a statesman should hazard to regulate the concerns of individuals as if he could do it better than themselves."^[3]

Even so, the law stood.

1808

January 8

On January 8, 1808, within weeks of the first embargo act being a law, a second one was passed. As historian Forrest McDonald wrote, "A loophole had been discovered in the first act, namely that coasting vessels, and fishing and whaling boats had not been required to post bonds guaranteeing that they would not sail for foreign ports." The new embargo act now required that all U.S. ships post a bond of twice the value of the ship and cargo. Failure to do so would:

• Lead to the forfeiture of said ship and cargo
• Result in "permanent and absolute" refusal in permission to use credit in regard to custom duties
• Render the oath of the ship's owner and/or captain inadmissible before any customs officer.^[4]

Meanwhile, Jefferson requested authorization from Congress to raise 30,000 troops from the current standing army of 2,800. Congress refused. With their harbors for the most part unusable in the winter anyway, New England and the north ports of the mid-Atlantic states, had paid little notice to the previous embargo acts. That was to change with the spring thaw, and the passing of yet another embargo act.

March 12

With the coming of the spring , the effects of the previous acts were immediately felt throughout the coastal states, none more so than in New England with economic downturn devolving into a depression, and spiraling unemployment. While protests up and down the eastern coast sprang to life, most merchants and shippers simply ignored the laws. On the Canadian border, especially in upstate New York and Vermont, the embargo laws were openly flouted. Federal officials believed parts of Maine, such as Passamaquoddy Bay, on the border with British-held New Brunswick, were in open rebellion. By March, an increasingly frustrated Jefferson was resolved to enforce the embargo to the letter.^{[citation needed]}

On March 12, 1808, Congress passed and Jefferson signed into law yet another embargo act. This one:^{[citation needed]}

1. Prohibited, for the first time, the export of any goods, either by land or by sea.
2. Subjected violators to a fine of $10,000, plus forfeiture of goods, for each offense.
3. Granted the President broad discretionary authority to enforce, deny, or grant exceptions to the embargo.^[5]
4. Authorized port authorities with the ability to seize cargoes without a warrant and/or^{[clarification needed]} to bring to trial any shipper or merchant who was thought to have merely contemplated violating the embargo.

Still the embargo was ignored, violated, and flouted; still the protests continued and continued to grow; and so it was that the Jefferson administration requested and Congress rendered yet another embargo act.

April 25

On April 25, 1808, Congress passed a proposal that once the wars of Europe were over and the President declared the country sufficiently safe, he would have the power to revoke the act. On March 1, 1809, Jefferson did just that. Even after the repeal however, U.S ships could trade legally with all nations except Britain and France.

Aftermath

A political cartoon showing merchants dodging the "Ograbme", which is 'Embargo' spelled backwards

It was repealed three days before Jefferson left office, being replaced by the Non-Intercourse Act on March 1, 1809, which lifted all embargoes except for those on Britain and France. This act was just as ineffective as the Embargo Act itself and was replaced again the following year with Macon's Bill Number 2, lifting the remaining embargoes. The entire series of events was ridiculed in the press as Dambargo, Mob-Rage, Go-bar-'em or O-grab-me ('Embargo' spelled backward); there was a cartoon ridiculing the Act as a snapping turtle, dubbed 'Ograbme', grabbing at American shipping.

Despite its unpopular nature, the Embargo Act did have some limited, unintended benefits, especially as it drove capital and labor into New England textile and other manufacturing industries, lessening America's reliance on the British.^[6] In Vermont, the embargo was doomed to failure on the Lake Champlain-Richelieu River water route because of Vermont's dependence on a Canadian outlet for produce. At St. John, Lower Canada, £140,000 worth of goods smuggled by water were recorded there in 1808 - a 31% increase over 1807. Shipments of ashes (used to make soap) nearly doubled to £54,000, but lumber dropped 23% to £11,200. Manufactured goods, which had expanded to £50,000 since Jay's Treaty of 1795, fell over 20%, especially articles made near Tidewater. Newspapers and manuscripts recorded more lake activity than usual, despite the theoretical reduction in shipping that should accompany an embargo. The smuggling was not restricted to water routes, as herds were readily driven across the uncontrollable land border. Southbound commerce gained two-thirds overall, but furs dropped a third. Customs officials maintained a stance of vigorous enforcement throughout and Gallatin's Enforcement Act (1809) was a party issue. Many Vermonters preferred the embargo's exciting game of revenuers versus smugglers, bringing high profits, versus mundane, low-profit normal trade.^[7]

Notes

1. ^ McDonald, (1976) p. 136.
2. ^ Malone,Dumas,Jefferson the President: The Second Term,(Boston, Brown-Little,1974) p. 461.
3. ^ Gallatin to Jefferson, December 1807, The Writings of Albert Gallatin, ed. Henry Adams, (Philadelphia, Lippincott 1879) Vol.1:368
4. ^ Ibid. 147.
5. ^ Ibid. #144
6. ^ Strum (1994)
7. ^ Muller (1970).

References

• Kaplan, Lawrence S. "Jefferson, the Napoleonic Wars, and the Balance of Power." William and Mary Quarterly 1957 14(2): 196-217. ISSN 0043-5597 Fulltext: online at JSTOR.
• Levy, Leonard W.; Jefferson and Civil Liberties: The Darker Side, 1963.
• McDonald, Forrest, The Presidency of Thomas Jefferson, (1976)* Malone, Dumas. Jefferson the President: The Second Term, 1974.
• Mannix, Richard. "Gallatin, Jefferson, and the Embargo of 1808." Diplomatic History 1979 3(2): 151-172. ISSN 0145-2096
• Muller, H. Nicholas. "Smuggling into Canada: How the Champlain Valley Defied Jefferson's Embargo." Vermont History 1970 38(1): 5-21. ISSN 0042-4161
• Sears; Louis Martin. Jefferson and the Embargo, 1927.
• Smelser, Marshall. The Democratic Republic, 1801-1815, 1968. (ISBN 0-06-131406-4)
• Smith, Joshua M. “‘So Far Distant from the Eyes of Authority:’ Jefferson’s Embargo and the U.S. Navy, 1807-1809,” in Craig Symonds, ed., New Interpretations in Naval History: Selected Papers from the Twelfth Naval History Symposium (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1998), 123-140
• Smith, Joshua M. “Murder on Isle au Haut: Violence and Jefferson’s Embargo in Coastal Maine, 1808-1809,” Maine History 39:1 (Spring 2000), 17-40
• Smith, Jodshua M. Borderland Smuggling: Patriots, Loyalists, and Illicit Trade in the Northeast, 1783-1820, 2006.
• Spivak, Burton; Jefferson's English Crisis: Commerce, Embargo, and the Republican Revolution, 1979.
• Strum, Harvey. "Rhode Island and the Embargo of 1807." Rhode Island History 1994 52(2): 58-67. ISSN 0035-4619

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)