The Embargo of 1807

In 1807 Britain and France were at war, and to gain an economic advantage both sides had forbidden the other to trade with the United States. Their threats were not idle either. Upon banning trade between France and America, The British Royal Navy began the practice of impressment upon American ships. They would stop American vessels and seize sailors, saying they were British deserters. As the year progressed so did the issue’s importance. It rose to the top of America’s foreign policy priorities with over 6,000 American sailors being taken. (Foner, p301)

On June 22, 1807 the Chesapeake Affair forced the president at the time, Thomas Jefferson, to make a decision. The British HMS Leopard had orders from the British government to attack the USS Chesapeake. Not only did they take four sailors, who were claimed to be British deserters, but three other sailors were killed and eighteen wounded. The extreme use of force by the British solders enraged the American people, and shouts were made for action. (Cray)

Going against his basic beliefs that the American economy needed foreign trade to survive, and that an intrusive national government was not beneficial to its country Jefferson decided to put up an embargo on all foreign goods. (Foner, 301) The embargo stated “During the continuance of the act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States, no vessels of any description whatever, and wherever bound, whose employment is confined to the navigation of bays, sounds, rivers, and lakes, within the jurisdiction of the United States, shall be allowed, to depart from any port of the United States without having previously obtained a clearance”(Embargo of 1807) This meant that American vessels were no longer allowed to trade with foreign countries. Jefferson had this done for three reasons. First, he felt that the embargo would hurt both Britain and France’s economies enough to where they would rescind their current policies towards trade with America. Second, he hoped it would cause Americans to cooperate amongst themselves, and make the economy grow internally. Third, with American ships not traveling far off shore they would be safe from British attacks. (University of Houston)

Unfortunately, the results were not what Jefferson had hoped for. Britain and France were too busy fighting against each other to take much major notice of the blockade. (Foner, 301) And instead of the domestic economy working amongst itself to profit, illegal smuggling through Canada flourished. By this time American exports had also sunk 80 percent. (Foner p 301) So the embargo was ended by congress just as Jefferson’s presidential term was coming to an end. The embargo was then replaced by the Non-Intercourse Act in 1809, which made trade legal with all countries except for Britain and France. (University of Houston)

The Non-Intercourse Act was soon thereafter replaced in 1810 by Macon’s Bill No. 2. which stated “all the penalties and forfeitures which may have been incurred under the act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States, or under any of the several acts supplementary thereto, or to enforce the same, or under the acts to interdict the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France and their dependencies, and for other purposes, shall be recovered and distributed, and may be remitted”.(Macon’s Bill No. 2) This meant that the United States was now ready to once again trade with Britain and France. But there was a catch. The bill also stated that if one of the countries was ready to recognize and respect the United State’s neutrality, then the United States would not trade with the other country. France saw this as a chance to bolster its trade and simultaneously hinder Britain’s, so they jumped at the opportunity and accepted the United State’s offer. In return the president at the time, James Madison, then brought back the trade embargo on Britain. (foner p 302)

By June of 1812 Britain was still harassing United State ships, and was aiding Indian attacks on American forces. With the embargo failing to keep Americans safe Madison decided it was time for war. He saw it as a time to make Britain realize that they could not bully themselves back into America. So he went to congress and declared war on Britain, ending the economic plan of attack and entering a stage of force. (foner p 302)

Overall, the embargo and the following legislation were failures. The country lost money, and was unable to avoid war. But to Jefferson and Madison’s credit they recognized the negatives of war, and were willing to attempt peaceful solutions. In Jefferson’s case he went as far as going against his core beliefs because he believed it was what was best for the American people. Yes the country had to eventually go to war. But attempting to solve international affairs bloodlessly instead of rushing headfirst into battle is never a disgraceful alternative.


Works Cited

Cray, Robert E. "Journal of the Early Republic." 3 Nov. 2005. Web.
<http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/journal_of_the_early_republic/v025/25.3cray.html>.

"Embargo Act of 1807." July 2002. Web. <http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/government/us/c_embargo.html>.

"The Embargo of 1807." University of Houston. Web. <http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=19>.

Foner, Eric. Give Me Liberty! Vol. 1. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2008. 301-02. Print.

"Macon's Bill No. 2." Apr. 2003. Web. <http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/government/us/c_macon.html>.

FOREIGN POLICY AND THE MONROE DOCTRINE

The United States seems to currently have its hands in every country’s pocket in some way. We have virtually every country on our payroll; so when something unexpected happens internationally the United States always seems to be involved in either the problem or solution. This level of involvement has lead to American troops being stationed in over 144 countries or territories worldwide. (Eland)

The irony of this is that one of America’s most famous and influential documents, The Monroe Doctrine, stated that America would do the complete opposite of what is happening today. It claimed that the United States would abstain from involvement in future foreign wars. If its author James Monroe could see American foreign policy today he would likely be disgusted and dissatisfied. Still, today’s general disregard for the ideals of the doctrine does not take away from its importance. At the time, the Monroe Doctrine was not only the United State’s official declaration of itself as the chief western power, it simultaneously made savvy diplomatic moves against European powers such as Britain, France, Spain, and Russia.

When the Monroe Doctrine was brought before congress on December 2, 1823 it proposed three major principles. First, the United States would not stand for any more European colonization in the Americas. Second, European powers were not to interfere with the new Latin American countries. Third, that the United States would not get involved in European wars. This document showed a major development within the United States. It was a bold statement, and it is often called “America’s diplomatic declaration of independence.” (Foner, p365)

Leading into the doctrine the United States had a unique situation. They had the opportunity to get involved in major power shifts within Europe. At the time Spain’s King Ferdinand VII had been overrun by revolutionaries. He was in desperate need of aid so France had sent solders to help him. This meant that the French soldiers had a chance at intervening and taking control of Spain. (May pg 2-3)

At the same time as this was going on in Spain, Britain was interested in proposing an alliance with the United States. Britain had a large economic stake in the new Latin American states, and they wanted to continue without American interference. This is important because Spain had a large presence in Latin America. If France was to gain control in Spain they would also have an opportunity to create their own Latin American colonies. Such a French presence would be detrimental to Britain because it could possibly harm their economic strength in Latin America. This meant that even if there was no formal alliance between Britain and the United States, then Britain would still protect the Latin American states from French imperialism. (May, pg 4-6)

On the other side of America, Russia was trying to stake a claim in the pacific. They wanted to extend their influence down the coastline into California. This meant the United States had outside powers trying to gain influence and territory in the Americas on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. (The Making of the Monroe Doctrine p2) This combination of pressures created a need for the government to take a stance. The Monroe Doctrine was that declaration. Monroe’s exact words were “The American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers… we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere, as dangerous to our peace and safety… It is still the true policy of the United States to leave the parties to themselves” (Monroe Doctrine) He had decided that America was not going to stand for outside intervention, and in return was not going to meddle in eastern country’s affairs.

What the Monroe Doctrine did by declaring the United States against any European Imperialism was both effective and safe. It threatened European powers that further colonization was not to be tolerated, and the United States now had the muscle to back such a claim. It told Russia to back off, and allowed for Britain to remain the chief trader in Latin America. (World Affairs) Now the United States had an effective foreign policy which stated its position firmly, and allowed for it to not get tied down by promises and alliances. Nobody was directly assaulted, and the United States was officially a power to be respected. It is unfortunate that such a direct and effective solution for foreign policy no longer seems like an option in today’s world.

WORKS CITED
Eland, Ivan. "The U.S. Military: Overextended Overseas." Cato Institute. Web.
<http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5853>.

Foner, Eric. Give Me Liberty! Vol. 1. New York, New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2005. Print.

May, Ernest R. The Making of the Monroe Doctrine. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard UP, 1976. Print.

Monroe, James. "The Monroe Doctrine." 2 Dec. 1823.
"World Affairs, 1823." Web. <http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h255.html>.

Intelligence and Communication in the American Revolution

Today it is easy to communicate with anyone anywhere in the world. Whether it is through the internet, a text, phone call, or formal letter, sending a message has never been easier. Aside from being convenient in everyday life, this level of efficiency becomes critical in times of great conflict. For example, during times of war instant communication is of paramount importance. Every decision affects countless lives, and needs as much information and input as possible.

However, in America’s infant stages there was no internet or telephone. The only way to reach another who was far away was through a letter delivered by horse. This caused little difficulty amongst communities, but made quick decisions on a larger scale tougher to make. During a war generals didn’t have the luxury of having every advisor on speed dial. They had to make decisions based on what intelligence could be scrapped together on a short notice. If reinforcements were needed it could take days before the closest army could be reached.

All of this makes the American Revolution more impressive. America had no trained army or a navy and Britain had both. To win America was going to need to communicate, be resilient, and have luck on their side. Often America focuses on the heart of the soldiers and leaders that fought off the British Invaders. But a surprisingly interesting and not often noticed aspect to the war was the aspect of communication, and spies that were used by both of the armies.

Both sides had spies amongst themselves. The CIA lists both George Washington and Benjamin Franklin as two of “the founding fathers of American intelligence” (www.cia.gov) due to their work in the Revolutionary War. George Washington had a group of spies he called the Culper Gang which was stationed in New York City. (Culper Gang) The group had an elaborate scheme to avoid detection. They would drop the letters off at a convenience store, take the letter by horse 110 miles, cross a bay, and give the letter to the head of the gang. All of this involved codenames, secret signals, and the use of invisible ink. Only once was a letter intercepted. Luckily, all it said was to look into someone as a possible new member, and did not give away any of the identities of any current members.

The British also had loyalists who worked as spies. One of the most famous ones is Benjamin Thompson, a loyalist who sent letters with information in both regular and invisible ink. In one letter he warned “an Army consisting of 30,000 effective men is speedily to be raised” (Spy Letters of the American Revolution). Another famous spy for the British was Ann Bates. She was a loyalist schoolteacher who posed as a peddler to listen in on conversations by soldiers. She not only passed on information, but also helped other spies find shelter. (Ann Bates)

When urgent news was learned through spies or word of mouth ones only option was to jump on a horse and sprint to where the information needed to be taken. Paul Revere’s Midnight Ride is the most famous example of this. When he learned of the coming British assault he “Rowed to the Charlestown shore” and “Galloped into Lexington”. (Longfellow, Henry W) He didn’t have the luxury of calling the locals and the American forces. He had to row across a river and ride a horse. Revere was lucky to be close enough to warn of the coming British attack. But what it he had learned of an attack that was over a two days ride, and couldn’t reach in time? Then it would have been too bad, and the American forces would have been attacked unprepared.

The Americans may have had the advantage of being on their home soil. But they were outnumbered by a more experienced force. This made the aspect of communication that much more important, because effectively coordinating attacks was the only way to beat the British. Great leaders like George Washington obviously helped. Also, the troops were fighting for their homes, which is some of the best motivation possible. Yet all of that would have been useless if the Americans didn’t have better intelligence than the British, and work off it well.

Works Cited

"The Culper Gang." University of Michigan. <http://www.si.umich.edu/spies/index-stories.html>.

Longfellow, Henry W. "The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere." <http//www.nationalcenter.org/PaulRevere'sRide.html>.

Polmar, Norman, and Thomas B. Allen. "Ann Bates." Random House. <http//www.randomhouse.com/features/spybook/spy/961128.html>.

Rose, P.K. Cia.gov. Central Intelligence Agency, 16 Mar. 2007. <https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-teh-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/the-founding-gathers-of-american-intelligence/art-1.html>.

"Spy Letters of the American Revolution." University of Michigan <http://www.si.umich.edu/spies/index-stories.html>.