Complaints of the Americans against the French.
America, had she had the power, would undoubtedly have resented by force of arms many of these captures; but between two such belligerents she was helpless, and had to submit, though not altogether in silence, to proceedings against her shipowners, too frequently as unjust as they were unjustifiable. While the rigorous enforcement of the right of search on the part of the English, and the decrees of the French excluding from their ports every neutral vessel which had English goods on board, or had touched at any of the ports of that country, remained in force, it was impossible for the shipowners of the United States of America to carry on an oversea trade with any prospect of success. French cruisers, scattered over the seas, with orders to sink or burn any ship which might reveal their route to the English (who, with all their naval force, could not control the immensity of the seas), captured American vessels for contraventions committed a few days after, and sometimes before, the publication of the decrees. As the news of each seizure reached the American minister in Paris, he complained with increasing energy. He invoked the principles alike of international and civil law, appealing to the convention by which the rights of neutrals were guaranteed, forbidding the application of laws until they could have become known, and, in the name of his outraged government, declared that “such proceedings, and the continuation of such acts, could not fail to interrupt the good understanding, which had so long subsisted between the two Powers, and had been mutually advantageous, which it would be unwise to destroy for the sake of pillaging a few merchant vessels.”[332]
Language of the Emperor.
But Napoleon understood perfectly well his own policy. Casting aside all those rules which restrain constitutional governments, his aim was to excite the Americans to open war against England; and whilst thus trampling upon the rights of America, the French minister was instructed to proclaim those of neutrals in the name of the Emperor! In a letter from M. Champigny to Mr. Armstrong, 12th Feb., 1808, it is stated that “A merchant vessel is a floating colony; any act of violence committed against such a vessel is an attack on the independence of its government. The seas belong to no nation; they are the common property, the domain of all.” In spite, however, of the enunciation of these just and liberal principles, and while admitting that the Berlin and Milan Decrees were flagrant violations of them, Napoleon incessantly threw the entire blame upon England, who, he alleged, had provoked these orders, and by setting up the indisputable dogma that the independence of the flag was a right common to all powers, he attempted to coerce the Americans into resisting by force the retaliatory measures to which England, in defence of her own commerce, was compelled to resort. Indeed M. de Champigny[333] explicitly says, “the Emperor has no doubt that the United States, considering the position in which England has placed the continent, particularly since its decree of the 11th of November, will declare war against her:” adding, “War does exist, de facto, between England and the United States, and the Emperor considers it as having been declared on the day on which England issued its orders. With this view, the Emperor, willing to consider the United States as engaged in the same cause with all the Powers who have to defend themselves against England, has adopted no definite measure with regard to the American vessels which may have been brought into the French ports. He has ordered them to be retained under sequestration until a determination could be taken with regard to them, which determination would depend upon the disposition manifested by the American government.”
Bayonne Decree, April 17, 1808.
Such language could only be interpreted in one way: “Make war against the mistress of the seas without delay, and then I will consider whether I will release the American vessels which in violation of the laws of nations I have seized.” Language such as this, supported by the tempting promise to restore the American ships he had captured, could only be the result of a deliberately planned policy on the part of Napoleon. By his Bayonne Decree, 17th April, 1808, he had given orders to seize all American vessels then in the ports of France, and such as should come in thereafter; and in an explanatory note of the 25th of April, 1808, addressed to the American minister at Paris, had stated that the decree of the 17th instant directed the seizure of vessels coming into the ports of France after that date, because no vessel of the United States could then navigate the seas without infringing their own laws, thus furnishing a presumption that they did so on British account or in British connection.
Finding that the French seizures were incessant, the American minister at Paris in the beginning of 1808 declared that the conduct of France towards the United States, instead of advancing the views of the Emperor, had an entirely contrary effect, and was calculated to defeat them. Whilst admitting[334] that the United States were ready to go to war with Great Britain for the purpose of avenging certain alleged outrages committed on American rights as a neutral nation, he reminded M. de Champigny that the French had also most grievously invaded those rights, showing at the same time that the reparation of those injuries, by relieving the American property from sequestration, and by renouncing for the future the right of seizure in such cases, would be the most efficient means of forming new and more intimate connections between the United States and France.
American Non-intervention Act, March 1, 1809.
Intrigues in Paris against England.
As the American shipowners had set at defiance the embargo imposed on the ports of the United States, their government on the 1st of March, 1809, replaced it by the Act of Non-intervention, whereby all intercourse between America, France, and England was interdicted under severe penalties, and the ports of America closed against the armed vessels of both belligerents. In communicating this act to the French government, General Armstrong took care to call special attention to its conditional character, and to disavow all hostile views and intentions, declaring it to be a measure of precaution in order to preserve the vessels of the United States from the numerous dangers to which they were exposed by the continuance of their intercourse with France. He subsequently added that “the Non-intercourse Act was a fresh appeal to the wisdom and justice of the Emperor, as a simple modification of the imperial decrees relating to the right of neutrals would instantly restore the commerce between the United States and France. The United States,” he continued, “did not in fact require a repeal of these decrees, having the greatest deference for the dignity of the chief of a great empire; and declared they would be satisfied if an interpretation were given to them which would thenceforward free American vessels from harassments and capture; finally, entering into the views which the Emperor had so often manifested”—that is to say, a league to humble the power and destroy the commercial navy of Great Britain. Indeed General Armstrong declared “that he was authorized, in case France should give the required explanation, and England should refuse a sufficient explanation, to state that the President of the United States would recommend an instant declaration of war against the latter Power.” These insidious propositions were not accepted by France. The Emperor persisted in requiring a repeal of the orders of the British Council before he would revoke the imperial decree, and left it with the United States to obtain such repeal by their own efforts. This attempt at reconciliation with France was then abandoned by the Americans, and the Non-intercourse Act remained in full vigour.