Embargo Act of 1807: Difference between revisions

The Embargo Act ("the Acts") is the name given to a series of acts passed by the Congress of the United States between the years 1806-1808, during the second term of President Thomas Jefferson. Initially, these acts sought to punish Great Britain for its peremptory actions toward American ships on the high seas; among these was the impressment of those sailors off American ships. Sailors who claimed to be American citizens, but not in the opinion, or to the satisfaction, of the Royal Navy, ever on the outlook for deserters. The later Embargo Acts, particularly those of 1807-1808 period, were passed in an attempt to stop Americans, and American communities, that sought to, or were merely suspected of possibility wanting to, defy the embargo. These Acts were ultimately repealed at the end of Jefferson's second, and last, term. A modified version of these Acts would return for a brief time in 1813 under the presidential administration of Jefferson's successor, James Madison.

On June 21, 1807 the USS Chesapeake ,while heading out to sea from its harbor at Boston, was ordered by the HMS Leopard to come about, and prepare to be boarded; British troops were coming on board to look for deserters of the Royal Navy. Captain James Baron of the Chesapeake refused. Upon which the Leopard promptly raked the American ship with a series of broadsides that left three Americans dead and 18 wounded, including Baron himself. The British then boarded the Chesapeake and retrieved four alleged deserters.

The outraged nation demanded action. The Jefferson administration instructed its senior representative in London, James Mason, to demand from His Majesty's government both an apology and satisfaction, among which were:

• reparations of past infractions to American vessels
• surety against any further such action(s)
• public chastisement of the captain of the Leopard, including the possibility of a court martial
• compensation to the United States for the loss of the ship and crew
• compensation to the survivors of those killed or wounded
• a special envoy to come to Washington D.C. and there publicly apologize for the actions of the Leopard, and announce, officially, an end to impressment of sailors on American ships.^[1]

While awaiting a reply, expected sometime by mid-October, President Jefferson issued a proclamation ordering British ships out of American waters, even those putting into port simply to take on food and water.

Toward the end of November 1807 the long awaited reply from Britain arrived. Speaking for His Majesty's government, the current Foreign Secretary George Canning conceded that the action(s) against the Chesapeake may have been unnecessarily harsh; and agreed that both the government of the United States, and the surviving members of those killed or gravely wounded in the confrontation, were entitled to compensation; however, Canning pointed out, there was the issue of the U.S. fleet -- both military and commercial --abetting and encouraging deserters, either through action or lack of action, from the Royal Navy. Until this particular matter was resolved, nothing could move forward. In private Jefferson declared Canning's reply as "unfriendly, proud, and harsh"^[2], but when he submitted it to Congress on December 8, he did so without comment.

Congress, convening in late October 1807, had only been told that a U.S. warship of the Humphreys class, had recently been attacked by a British ship; that three Americans had been killed, four wounded, and four taken away by the British. In short, not much more than the average American knew about the event. As historian Forrest McDonald wrote, "[It was] a presidential message that told them... [yet had] recommended nothing." But the American people were demanding action. Lacking guidance from Jefferson either in his role as President, or as head of the Republican Party, Congress, after much debate, declared that the Non-Importation Act of 1806, which had been allowed to fall into disregard would now be resurrected starting December 14, 1807. The measure was passed on the unspoken understanding that this embargo, would be like other embargoes: It would last no more than a few months during which time the nation would prepare itself for war.

Then on December 18, shortly after signing this first of the many embargo acts in to law, Jefferson sent the unsuspecting Congress three communication:

• News that the Napoleonic government of France would henceforth consider any and all American ships, whether commercial or military, subject to the Berlin Decree.
• News of the official British proclamation stating that His Majesty's government maintained and reasserted its right to board and retrieve any sailor on any American ship, military as well as commercial, that it suspected of harboring deserters.
• News of the unofficial notice that in response of Napoleon's latest decree, the British Orders in Council had declared the U.S. was henceforth only allowed to trade with and/or through Great Britain, or no trade, with anyone, anywhere, at all. ^[3]

The Republican administration and dominated Congress opted for "no trade at all."

On Friday, December 18, 1807 within a few hours after receiving the three documents submitted by Jefferson, the Senate passed the Embargo Act of December 18, 1807; the following Monday, December 21 the House did likewise; on Tuesday, December 22, Jefferson signed the bill into law. Unlike the previous non-importation act, this law was aimed at American shippers and their vessels. The new law required, among other things,

1) American vessels were prohibited from landing in any foreign port unless specifically authorized by the President himself.

2) Trading vessels were now required to post a bond of guarantee equal to the value of both the ship itself and its cargo, in order to insure compliance with the law. ^[4] 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 then had been calculated; and it is not without hesitation that a statesman should hazard to regulate the concerns of individuals as if he could do better than themselves" ^[5] Gallatin's concerns were to no avail.

On January 08, 1808, within weeks of the first embargo act being 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 the 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
• Declaration that the oath of the ship's owner and/or captain would henceforth be inadmissible before any custom's officer. ^[6]

Meanwhile, Jefferson requested authorization from Congress to raise 30,000 troops from the current standing army of 2,800. Congressed 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.

With the coming of the spring thaw, 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. White protests up and down the seaboard sprang to life, merchants and shippers simply ignored that laws. On the U.S./Canada border, especially in the area of upstate New York, the embargo laws were openly flouted. By March an increasingly frustrated Jefferson, urged on the embargo's champion James Madison, was resolved to enforce the embargo to the letter.

And do it was that on 12 March 1808 Congress would pass, and Jefferson sign into law, still another embargo act. This one:

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 ($1,000,000?), plus forfeiture of goods, for each offense.

3) Granted the President broad discretionary authority to enforce, deny, or grant exceptions to the embargo. ^[7]

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.

On March 30, 1808 Jefferson submitted to Congress a proposal for yet another law regarding the American embargo. This act was to be known simply, and unofficially, as "The Enforcement Act".This new act, "...in direct opposition to the fourth and fifth amendments of the Bill of Rights...(and) a more sweeping power than had been given to the king's (George III) agents...that provoked the American colonists to rebellion..."^[8]

Signed into law on 24 April, this, thankfully for the Republic, was to be the last of the many embargo act to become law during Jefferson's presidency. The "Enforcement Law" decreed:

• That port authorities were allowed to seize cargoes without a warrant, and/or to bring to trial any shipper or merchant who was thought to have merely contemplated violating the embargo.
• That the President of the United States had both the right and the duty to use both the Army and the Navy to enforce the embargo laws. ^[9]

In seeking to punish the British the Jefferson administration had declared war on the citizens of America.^[10]

Congress repealed the Act three days before Jefferson left office, replacing it with 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 grabbing at American shipping, labeled Ograbme.

A case study of Rhode Island shows the embargo devastated shipping-related industries, wrecked existing markets, and caused an increase in opposition to the Republican Party. Smuggling was widely endorsed by the public, which viewed the embargo as a violation of their rights. Public outcry continued, helping the Federalists regained control of the state government in 1808-09. The case is a rare example of US national foreign policy altering local patterns of political allegiance.

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.^[11] 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 drove 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.^[12]

• 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 in Jstor
• Levy, Leonard W.; Jefferson and Civil Liberties: The Darker Side. (1963)
• 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), state by state analysis of impact
• Smelser, Marshall. The Democratic Republic, 1801-1815 (1968) (ISBN 0-06-131406-4) survey of political and diplomatic history
• 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