One of the objects of Napoleon by his decrees was evidently to prey upon the known susceptibility of the Americans, and to urge them, on the pretence of the independence of their flag, to resist the executive authority exercised by England, whether with regard to the right of neutrals, the right of search, or the impressment of American seamen, all fruitful sources of complaint on the part of the American government. Nor had he, indeed, unwilling listeners, for the Americans, in their diplomatic proceedings, exhibited an unequivocal tendency to favour Napoleon. Although statements were made in Parliament that the Americans would have joined England in the war against France if she would have consented to rescind the Orders in Council as regarded their shipping, all these allegations were unfortunately at variance with the truth, and were, in fact, only put forward by interested English merchants who could no longer avail themselves of American bottoms to carry on their trade. Finding their embargo inoperative, as American vessels preferred an adventurous commerce and large profits to a ruinous inaction, the United States government removed it; but as the European governments were inflexible in their policy, they immediately afterwards passed the Act of Non-Intercourse,[290] by which all commercial interchanges with France and England were prohibited; the result being the Rambouillet Decree, issued by Napoleon on the 23rd of March, 1810, which ordered that all American vessels and cargoes arriving in any of the ports of France or of countries occupied by French troops, should be seized and condemned.
Secret terms with America.
On the 1st of May, 1810, Congress passed a further Act, excluding British and French armed vessels from the waters of the United States, but providing that if either of these nations should modify its edicts by the 3rd of March, 1811, of which fact the President was to give notice by proclamation, and the other did not, within three months after, pursue a similar course, commercial intercourse with the first might be renewed, but not with the second. It, however, appears that while Napoleon was intriguing with the American minister in Paris to concert hostile anti-commercial measures against England, he had issued on the 5th of August, 1810, the Trianon Decree,[291] ordering the sale of all American vessels seized, and the proceeds to be paid into the treasury. In spite, however, of this perfidy, the United States came to an understanding with Napoleon, that they would, as he desired, “cause their flag to be respected,” that is, break with England, provided their vessels were released, and provision made for their enjoying the monopoly of the continental carrying trade.
Partiality of the United States towards France.
Contentions at home respecting the Orders in Council.
Accordingly, on the 2nd of November, 1810, the President issued his proclamation declaring the French decrees revoked, thus renewing intercourse between the United States and France; and on the 10th of the same month another proclamation appeared, interdicting commercial intercourse with England.[292] These antagonistic demonstrations were accompanied with a vast amount of popular declamation against England, and as Napoleon was then rising to the height of his ambitious career, the people of the United States were, it is to be feared, ready to be his acquiescing instruments in assisting to rivet the chains of the nations of Europe, provided they were secured the monopoly of the carrying trade, to the displacement of English shipping. But whatever motives may have governed their conduct, whether mere commercial interest, or a more broad national policy, it is beyond controversy that in the negotiations and language held throughout there was a marked partiality towards France and her ruler, and a corresponding coldness and animosity against England. This disposition of the United States to display subserviency to the French emperor, and their hostile temper towards Great Britain, daily increased, but it was not until 1812 that the long smouldering ashes of suppressed enmity broke out into open hostilities.[293] In England the contentions which arose respecting the Orders in Council shook the commercial peace of the country. Every man espoused the side with which his own peculiar interests were interwoven, claiming, however, to be the infallible guide upon the subject to all his countrymen. Mr. Alexander Baring, the second son of Sir Francis Baring, who had passed many years in the United States, where he and his brother Henry had formed matrimonial alliances, published a pamphlet[294] which greatly favoured the American view of the subject, and exhibited a feeling of the greatest alarm lest “as past errors had brought us to the brink of a precipice, the next might throw us over it.”[295]
Declaration of war with America.
Although these Orders in Council were loudly condemned by the Whigs, who made them their leading stalking-horse, whereby to assail the ministry, the Tories and the government were inflexible, and chose rather to risk a rupture with the United States than to relax their policy. They were still of opinion that the infallible consequences of repealing these orders and of giving up the licence trade would be to open the ports of France, and to transfer to the United States the commerce of the world. This determination at last brought about the long pending rupture, but other reasons were not wanting to hasten this lamentable event.
Motives of the Americans.
The Americans, seeing the vast preparations made by Napoleon for the subjugation of Russia, had evidently calculated that he would succeed, and that, the continental system being established, they, holding a monopoly of the carrying trade, could, in league with France, humble England, their great maritime and commercial rival. Consequently their government declared war on the 18th of May, 1812, and General Hall immediately invaded Canada. But the English declaration of war was not issued until the 11th of October, 1812,[296] about the very moment when Napoleon commenced his fatal retreat from Moscow, which, however, was not then known. Mr. Barlow, the American minister at Paris, had been invited to proceed to Wilna in the rear of the Imperial army; and there can be no doubt that Napoleon, in the event of success, would have dictated the terms of the treaty with the United States which Mr. Barlow had hitherto in vain endeavoured to secure. Napoleon, as everybody knows, failed utterly in his Russian campaign, Barlow died in Poland, and the Americans found themselves at war with England on grounds which not one of their historians ever ventures to defend, and which their statesmen of to-day would heartily repudiate, if war on such shallow and selfish pretences was again attempted.