Volume IV Part 4 (1/2)

[38] ”During the present paroxysm of the insanity of Europe, we have thought it wisest to break off all intercourse with her.” (Jefferson to Armstrong, May 2, 1808, _ib._ 30.)

[39] ”Three alternatives alone are to be chosen from. 1. Embargo. 2.

War. 3. Submission and tribute, &, wonderful to tell, the last will not want advocates.” (Jefferson to Lincoln, Nov. 13, 1808, _ib._ 74.)

[40] See Act of December 22, 1807 (_Annals_, 10th Cong. 1st Sess.

2814-15); of January 9, 1808 (_ib._ 2815-17); of March 12, 1808 (_ib._ 2839-42); and of April 25, 1808 (_ib._ 2870-74); Treasury Circulars of May 6 and May 11, 1808 (_Embargo Laws_, 19-20, 21-22); and Jefferson's letter ”to the Governours of Orleans, Georgia, South Carolina, Ma.s.sachusetts and New Hamps.h.i.+re,” May 6, 1808 (_ib._ 20-21).

Joseph Hopkinson sarcastically wrote: ”Bless the Embargo--thrice bless the Presidents distribution Proclamation, by which his minions are to judge of the appet.i.tes of his subjects, how much food they may reasonably consume, and who shall supply them ... whether under the Proclamation and Embargo System, a child may be lawfully born without a clearing out at the Custom House.” (Hopkinson to Pickering, May 25, 1808, Pickering MSS. Ma.s.s. Hist. Soc.)

[41] Professor Channing says that ”the orders in council had been pa.s.sed originally to give English s.h.i.+p-owners a chance to regain some of their lost business.” (Channing: _Jeff. System_, 261.)

[42] Indeed, Napoleon, as soon as he learned of the American Embargo laws, ordered the seizure of all American s.h.i.+ps entering French ports because their captains or owners had disobeyed these American statutes and, therefore, surely were aiding the enemy. (Armstrong to Secretary of State, April 23, postscript of April 25, 1808, _Am. State Papers, For.

Rel._ III, 291.)

[43] Morison: _Otis_, II, 10-12; see also Channing: _Jeff. System_, 183.

[44] _Annals_, 10th Cong. 2d Sess. 22.

The intensity of the interest in the Embargo is ill.u.s.trated by Giles's statement in his reply to Hillhouse that it ”almost ... banish[ed] every other topic of conversation.” (_Ib._ 94.)

[45] Four years earlier, Pickering had plotted the secession of New England and enlisted the support of the British Minister to accomplish it. (See vol. III, chap. VII, of this work.) His wife was an Englishwoman, the daughter of an officer of the British Navy. (Pickering and Upham: _Life of Timothy Pickering_, I, 7; and see Pickering to his wife, Jan. 1, 1808, _ib._ IV, 121.) His nephew had been Consul-General at London under the Federalist Administrations and was at this time a merchant in that city. (Pickering to Rose, March 22, 1808, _New-England Federalism:_ Adams, 370.) Pickering had been, and still was, carrying on with George Rose, recently British Minister to the United States, a correspondence all but treasonable. (Morison: _Otis_, II, 6.)

[46] _Annals_, 10th Cong. 2d Sess. 175, 177-78.

[47] _Annals_, 10th Cong. 2d Sess. 193.

[48] _Ib._ 279-82.

[49] Marshall to Pickering, Dec. 19, 1808, Pickering MSS. Ma.s.s. Hist.

Soc.

[50] See vol. II, 509-14, of this work.

[51] Morison: _Otis_, II, 3-4.

[52] ”The tories of Boston openly threaten insurrection.” (Jefferson to Dearborn, Aug. 9, 1808, _Works_: Ford, XI, 40.) And see Morison: _Otis_, II, 6; _Life and Correspondence of Rufus King_: King, V, 88; also see Otis to Quincy, Dec. 15, 1808, Morison: _Otis_, II, 115.

[53] Monroe to Taylor, Jan. 9, 1809, _Branch Historical Papers_, June, 1908, 298.

[54] Adams to Rush, July 25, 1808, _Old Family Letters_, 191-92.

[55] _Annals_, 10th Cong. 2d Sess. III, 1798-1804.

[56] Morison: _Otis_, II, 10. These resolutions denounced ”'all those who shall a.s.sist in enforcing on others the arbitrary & unconst.i.tutional provisions of this [Force Act]' ... as 'enemies to the Const.i.tution of the United States and of this State, and hostile to the Liberties of the People.'” (Boston Town Records, 1796-1813, as quoted in _ib._; and see McMaster: _History of the People of the United States_, III, 328.)

[57] McMaster, III, 329.

[58] McMaster, III, 329-30; and see Morison: _Otis_, II, 4.

The Federalist view was that the ”Force Act” and other extreme portions of the Embargo laws were ”so violently and palpably unconst.i.tutional, as to render a reference to the judiciary absurd”; and that it was ”the inherent right of the people to resist measures fundamentally inconsistent with the principles of just liberty and the Social compact.” (Hare to Otis, Feb. 10, 1814, Morison: _Otis_, II, 175.)