Left unatoned, the attack on the "Chesapeake" remained in American consciousness where Jefferson and Madison had sought to place it,—an example of the outrages of impressment. The incidental violence, which aroused attention and wrath, differed in nothing but circumstance from the procedure when an unresisting merchant vessel was deprived of men. In both cases there was the forcible exaction of a disputed claim. Canning, indeed, was at pains to explain that originally the British right extended to vessels of every kind; but "for nearly a century the Crown had forborne to instruct the commanders of its ships of war to search foreign ships of war for deserters, ... because to attack a national ship of war is an act of hostility. The very essence of the charge against Admiral Berkeley, as you represent it, is the having taken upon himself to commit an act of hostility without the previous authority of his Government." Under this construction, the incident only served to emphasize the fundamental opposition of principle, and to exasperate the war party in the United States. To deprive a foreign merchant vessel of men was not considered a hostile act; and the difference in the case of ships of war was only because the Crown chose so to construe. The argument was, that to retain seamen of British birth, when recalled by proclamation, was itself hostile, because every such seaman disobeying this call was a deserter. It was to be presumed that a foreign Power would not countenance their detention, and on this presumption no search of its commissioned ships was ordered. "But with respect to merchant vessels there is no such presumption."[202]
While the "Chesapeake" affair was still in its earlier stages of discussion, the passage of events in Europe was leading rapidly to the formulation of the extreme British measures of retaliation for the Berlin Decree. On June 14 Napoleon defeated the Russians at the battle of Friedland; and on June 22, the day the "Leopard" attacked the "Chesapeake," an armistice was signed between the contending parties. Upon this followed the Conventions of Tilsit, July 8, 1807, by which the Czar undertook to support the Continental system, and to close his ports to Great Britain. The deadly purpose of the commercial warfare thus reinforced was apparent; and upon the Emperor's return to Paris, soon afterwards, the Berlin Decree received an execution more consonant to its wording than was the construction hitherto given it by French officials. In May, an American ship, the "Horizon," bound from England to Peru, had been wrecked upon the coast of France. Her cargo consisted in part of goods of British origin. Up to that time, no decisions contrary to American neutral rights had been based upon the Decree by French courts; but final action in the case of the "Horizon" was not taken till some time after the Emperor's return. Meanwhile, on August 9, General Armstrong, the American minister, had asked that Spain, which had formally adopted the Berlin Decree as governing its own course, should be informed of the rulings of the French authorities; "for a letter from the chargé des affaires of the United States at Madrid shows that the fate of sundry American vessels, captured by Spanish cruisers, will depend, not on the construction which might be given to the Spanish decree by Spanish tribunals, but on the practice which shall have been established in France."[203] This letter was referred in due course—August 21—to the Minister of Marine, and a reply promised when his answer should be received. Under Napoleon's eye, doubts not entertained in his absence seem to have occurred to the ministers concerned, and on September 24 Armstrong learned that the Emperor had been consulted, and had said that, as he had expressed no exceptions to the operation of his Decree, French armed vessels were authorized to seize goods of English origin on board neutral vessels. This decision, having the force of law, was communicated to the tribunals, and under it so much of the "Horizon's" cargo as answered to this description was condemned. The rest was liberated.[204]
When this decision became known, it was evident that within the range of Napoleon's power there would henceforth be no refuge for British manufactures, or the produce of British colonies; that neutral ownership or jurisdiction would be no protection against force. Even the pity commonly extended to the shipwrecked failed, if his property had been bought in England. Recognition of the increased danger was shown in the doubling and trebling of insurance. The geographical sweep intended to be given to the edict was manifested by the action of state after state whither arms had extended Napoleon's influence; or, as Armstrong phrased it, "having settled the business of belligerents, with the exception of England, very much to his own liking, he was now on the point of settling that of neutrals in the same way." In July, Denmark and Portugal, as yet at peace, had been notified that they must choose between France and England, and had been compelled to exclude English commerce. August 29, a French division entered Leghorn, belonging to the nominally independent Kingdom of Etruria, took possession of the harbor and forts, ordered the surrender of all British goods in the hands of the inhabitants, and laid a general embargo upon the shipping, among which were many Americans. In Lower Italy, the Papal States and Naples underwent the same restrictions. Prussia yielded under obvious constraint, and Austria acceded from motives of policy, distinguishable in form only from direct compulsion. Russia, as already said, had joined immediately after decisive defeat in the field. The co-operation of the United States, the second maritime nation in the world, was vital to the general plan. Could it be secured? Already, at an audience given to the diplomatic corps on August 2, the Danish minister had taken Armstrong aside and asked him whether any application had been made to him with regard to the projected union of all commercial states against Great Britain. Being answered in the negative, he said, "You are much favored, but it will not last."[205] Armstrong characterized this incident as not important; but in truth the words italicized defined exactly the menacing scheme already matured in the Emperor's mind, for the execution of which, as events already showed, and continued to prove, he relied upon the force of arms. To this the United States was not accessible; but to coerce or cajole her by other means became a prominent feature of French policy, which was powerfully abetted by the tone of Great Britain speaking through Canning.
To appreciate duly the impending measures of the British ministry, attention should fasten upon the single decisive fact that this vast combination was not the free act of the parties concerned, but a submission imposed by an external military power, which at the moment, and for five succeeding years, they were unable to resist. It is one thing to deny the right of any number of independent communities to join in a Customs Union; it is another to maintain the obligations upon third parties of such a convention, when extorted by external compulsion. Either action may be resisted, but means not permissible in the one case may be justified in the other. In the European situation the subjected states, by reason of their subjection, disappeared as factors in diplomatic consideration. There remained only their master Napoleon, with his momentary lieutenant the Czar, and opposed to them Great Britain. "It is obvious," said the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, Champagny, to Armstrong, "that his Majesty cannot permit to his allies a commerce which he denies to himself. This would be at once to defeat his system and oppress his subjects."[206] A few days later he wrote formally, "His Majesty considered himself bound to order reprisals on American vessels not only in his territory, but likewise in the countries which are under his influence,—Holland, Spain, Italy, Naples."[207] The Emperor by strength of arms oppressed to their grievous injury those who could not escape him; what should be the course of those whom he could not reach, to whom was left the choice between actual resistance and virtual co-operation? The two really independent states were Great Britain and the United States. In the universal convulsion of civilization, the case of the several nations recalls the law of Solon, that in civil tumults the man who took neither side should be disfranchised.
The United States chose neutrality, and expected that it would be permitted her. She chose to overlook the interposition of Napoleon, and to regard the exclusion laws, forced by him upon other states, as instances of municipal regulation, incontestable when freely exercised. Not only would she not go behind the superficial form, but on technical grounds of international law she denied the right of another to do so. Great Britain had no choice. She was compelled to resistance; the question was as to methods. Direct military action was impossible. The weapon used against her was commercial prohibition, which meant eventual ruin, unless adequately parried by her own action. From Europe no help was to be expected. If the United States also decided so far to support Napoleon as to prosecute her trade subject to his measures, accepting as legal regulations extorted by him from other European countries, the trade of Europe would be transferred from Great Britain to America, and the revenues of France would expand in every way, while those of Great Britain shrank,—a result militarily fatal. In this the British Government would not acquiesce. It chose instead war with the United States, under the forms of peace.
That the tendency of the course pursued by the United States was to destroy British commerce, and that this tendency was successfully counteracted by the means framed by the British Government,—the Orders in Council,—admits of little doubt. When the American policy had worked out to its logical conclusion, in open trade with France, and complete interdict of importation from Great Britain, Joel Barlow, American Minister to France in 1811-12, and an intimate of Jefferson and Madison, wrote thus to the French Minister of Foreign Affairs: "In adopting the late arrangements with France the United States could not contemplate the deprivation of revenue. They really expected to draw from this country and from the rest of continental Europe the same species of manufactures, and to as great an amount as they were accustomed to do from England. They calculated with the more confidence on such a result as they saw how intimately it was combined with the great and essential interests of the Imperial Government. They perceived that it would promote in an unexpected degree the Continental system, which the Emperor has so much at heart.... The Emperor now commands nearly all the ports of continental Europe. The whole interior of the Continent must be supplied with American products. These must pass through French territory, French commercial houses, canals, and wagons. They must pay" toll to France in various ways, "and thus render these territories as tributary to France as if they were part of her own dominions."[208] But Napoleon replied that his system, as it stood, had greatly crippled British commerce, and that if he should admit American shipping freely to the Continent, trade could not be carried on, because the English under the Orders in Council would take it all, going or coming.[209]
"The peril of the moment is truly supposed to be great beyond all former example," wrote Pinkney, now American minister in London, when communicating to his Government the further Orders in Council adopted by Great Britain, in response to the attempted "union of all the commercial states" against her. As defined by Canning to Pinkney,[210] "the principle upon which the whole of this measure has been framed is that of refusing to the enemy those advantages of commerce which he has forbidden to this country. The simplest method of enforcing this system of retaliation would have been to follow the example of the enemy, by prohibiting altogether all commercial intercourse between him and other states." America then would not be allowed to trade with the countries under his Decrees. It was considered, however, more indulgent to neutrals—to the second parties in commercial intercourse with the enemy—to allow this intercourse subject to duties in transit to be paid in Great Britain. This would raise the cost to the continental consumer and pay revenue to Great Britain.
The Orders in Council of November 11, 1807, therefore forbade all entrance to ports of the countries which had embraced the Continental system. It was not pretended that they would be blockaded effectively. "All ports from which the British flag is excluded shall from henceforth be subject to the same restrictions, in point of trade and navigation, with the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, as if the same were actually blockaded in the most strict and rigorous manner by his Majesty's naval forces." The exception was merely that a vessel calling first at a British port would be allowed to proceed to one of those prohibited, after paying certain duties upon her cargo and obtaining a fresh clearance. This measure was instituted by the Executive, in pursuance of the custom of regulating trade with America by Orders in Council, prevalent since 1783; but it received legislative sanction by an Act of Parliament, March 28, 1808, which fixed the duties to be paid on the foreign goods thus passing through British custom-houses. Cotton, for instance, was to pay nine pence a pound, an amount intended to be prohibitory; tobacco, three halfpence. These were the two leading exports of United States domestic produce. In the United States this Act of Parliament was resented more violently, if possible, than the Order in Council itself. In the colonial period there had been less jealousy of the royal authority than of that of Parliament, and the feeling reappears in the discussion of the present measures. "This," said a Virginia senator,[211] "is the Act regulating our commerce, of which I complain. An export duty, which could not be laid in Charleston because forbidden by our Constitution, is laid in London, or in British ports." It was literally, and in no metaphorical sense, the reimposition of colonial regulation, to increase the revenues of Great Britain by reconstituting her the entrepôt of commerce between America and Europe. "The Orders in Council," wrote John Quincy Adams in a public letter, "if submitted to, would have degraded us to the condition of colonists."[212]
This just appreciation preponderated over other feelings throughout the middle and southern states. Adams, a senator from Massachusetts, had separated himself in action and opinion from the mass of the people in New England, where, although the Orders were condemned, hatred of Napoleon and his methods overbore the sense of injury received from Great Britain. The indignation of the supporters of the Administration was intensified by the apparent purpose of the British Government to keep back information of the measure. Rose had sailed the day after its adoption, Monroe two days later, but neither brought any official intimation of its issuance, although that was announced in the papers of the day. "The Orders in Council," wrote Adams, "were not merely without official authenticity. Rumors had been for several weeks in circulation, derived from English prints and from private correspondence, that such Orders were to issue,[213] and no inconsiderable pains were taken to discredit the facts. Suspicions were lulled by declarations equivalent as nearly as possible to positive denial, and these opiates were continued for weeks after the embargo was laid, until Mr. Erskine received orders to make official communication of the Orders themselves, in proper form, to our Government."[214] This remissness, culpable as it certainly was in a matter of such importance, was freely attributed to the most sinister motives. "These Orders in Council were designedly concealed from Mr. Rose, although they had long been deliberated upon, and almost matured, before he left London. They were the besom which was intended to sweep, and would have swept, our commerce from the ocean. Great Britain in the most insidious manner had issued orders for the entire destruction of our commerce."[215]
The wrath was becoming, but in this particular the inference was exaggerated. The Orders, modelled on the general plan of blockades, provided for the warning of a vessel which had sailed before receiving notification; and not till after a first notice by a British cruiser was she liable to capture. Mention of such cases occurs in the journals of the day.[216] Some captains persisted, and, if successful in reaching a port under Napoleon's control, found themselves arrested under a new Decree,—that of Milan,—for having submitted to a visit they could not resist. Such were sequestered, subject to the decision of the United States to take active measures against Great Britain. "Arrived at New York, March 23, [1808], ship 'Eliza,' Captain Skiddy, 29 days from Bordeaux. All American vessels in France which had been boarded by British cruisers were under seizure. The opinion was, they would so remain till it was known whether the United States had adjusted its difficulties with Great Britain, in which case they would be immediately condemned. A letter from the Minister of Marine was published that the Decree of Milan must be executed severely, strictly, and literally."[217] Independent of a perpetual need to raise money, by methods more consonant to the Middle Ages than to the current period, Napoleon thus secured hostages for the action of the United States in its present dilemma.