« ForrigeFortsett »
When deprived of this flimsy veil for a prohibition of our trade with her enemy, by the repeal of his prohibition of our trade with G. Britain, her cabinet, instead of a corresponding repeal or a practical discontinuance of its orders, formally avowed a determination to persist in them against the United States, until the markets of her eņemy should be laid open to British products ; thus asserting an obligation on a neutral power to require one belligerent to encourage, by its internal regulations, the trade of another belligerent ; contradicting her own practice towards all nations in peace as well as in war ; and betraying the insincerity of those professions which inculcated a belief that, having resorted to her orders with regret, she was anxious to find an occasion for putting an end to them.
Abandoning still more all respect for the neutral rights of the U. States, and for its own consistency, the British government now demands, as prerequisites to a repeal of its orders, as they relate to the United States, that a formality should be observed in the repeal of the French decrees nowise necessary to their termination, nor exemplified by British usage ; and that the French repeal, besides including that portion of the decrees which operates within a territorial jurisdiction as well as that which operates on the high seas against the com. merce of the United States, should not be a single special repeal in relation to the U. States, but should be extended to whatever other neutral nations unconnected with them may be affected by those decrees.
And as an additional insult, they are called on for a formal disavowal of conditions and pretensions advanced by the French government, for which the United States are so far from having made themselves responsible, that, in official explanations, which have been pub. lished to the world, and in a correspondence of the American minister at London with the British minister for Foreign Affairs, such a responsibility was explicitly and emphatically disclaimed.
It has become indeed sufficiently certain that the commerce of the United States is to be sacrificed, not as interfering with the belligerent rights of Great Brit.
ain, not as supplying the wants of her enemies, which she herself supplies ; but as interfering with the monopoly which she covets for her own commerce and navigation. She carries on a war against the lawful commerce of a friend, that she may the better carry on a commerce with an enemy, a commerce polluted by the forgeries and perjuries which are for the most part the only passports by which it can succeed.
Anxious to make every experiment short of the last resort of injured nations, the United States have withheld from Great Britain, under successive modifications, the benefits of a free intercourse with their market, the loss of which could not but outweigh the profits accruing from her restrictions of our commerce with other nations. And to entitle these experiments to the more favourable consideration, they were so framed as to ena. ble her to place her adversary under the exclusive operation of them. To these appeals her government has been equally inflexible, as if willing to make sacrifices of
every sort, rather than yield to the claims of justice or renounce the errors of a false pride. Nay, so far were the attempts carried to overcome the attachment of the British cabinet, to its unjust edicts, that it received every encouragement within the competency of the executive branch of our government, to expect that a repeal of them would be followed by a war between the United States and France, unless the French edicts should also be repealed. Even this communication, although silencing for ever the plea of a disposi. tion in the United States to acquiesce in those edicts, originally the sole plea for them, received no attention.
If no other proof existed of a predetermination of the British government against a repeal of its orders, it might be found in the correspondence of the Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States at London, and the British Secretary for Foreign Affairs in 1810, on the question whether the blockade of May 1806 was considered as in force or as not in force. It had been ascertained that the French government, which urged this blockade as the ground of its Berlin decree, was willing, in the event of its removal, to repeal that decree; which
being followed by alternate repeals of the other offensive edicts, might abolish the whole system on both sides. This inviting opportunity for accomplishing an object so important to the United States, and professed so often to be the desire of both the belligerents, was made known to the British government. As that government admits that an actual application of an adequate force is necessary to the existence of a legal blockade, and it was notorious, that if such a force had ever been applied, its long discontinuance had annulled the blockade in question, there could be no sufficient objection on the part of Great Britain to a form el revocation of it ; and no imaginable objection to a declaration of the fact that the blockade did not exist. The declaration would have been consistent with her avowed principles of blockade, and would have enabled the U. S. to demand from France the pledged repeal of her decrees ; either with success, in which case the way would have been opened for a general repeal of the belligerent edicts; or without success, in which case the U. States would have been justified in turning their measures exclusively against France. The British government would, how- . ever, neither rescind the blockade nor declare its nonexistence ; nor permit its non-existence to be inferred and affirmed by the Anerican Plenipotentiary.-On the contrary by representing the blockade to be comprehen. ded in the orders in council, the United States were compelled so to regard it in their subsequent proceedings.
There was a period when a favourable change in the policy of the British cabinet was justly considered as established. The Minister Plenipotentiary of His Britanic Majesty here proposed an adjustment of the differences more immediately endangering the harmony of the two countries. The proposition was accepted with a promptitude and cordiality corresponding with the invariable professions of this government. A foundation appeared to be laid for a sincere and lasting reconciliation. The prospect, however, quickly vanished. The whole proceeding was disavowed by the British government without any explanation which could at that time repress the belief, that the disavowal proceeded from a
so oft vas ma vernme ce force He, and
1 appli: ckade
it ; 21
fact th n wou ciples : demic ; eith ve bet acts; ld hat lusive H, hot ts no nferri Onth rehe
COM engs. in the as es ritan ence
twi отр iabli cared Th pro nen
spirit of hostility to the commercial rights and prosperity of the United States. And it has since come into proof, that at the very moment when the public Minister was holding the language of friendship,and inspiring confidence in the sincerity of the negotiation with which he was charged, a secret agent of his government was employed in intrigues, having for their object a subversion of our government and a dismemberment of our happy Union.
In reviewing the conduct of Great Britain towards the United States, our attention is necessarily drawn to the warfare just renewed by the savages on one of our extensive frontiers ; a warfare which is known to spare neither age nor sex, and to be distinguished by features peculiarly shocking to humanity. It is difficult to account for the activity and combinations which have for some time been developing themselves among the tribes in constant intercourse with British traders and garrisons, without connecting their hostility with that influence; and without recollecting the authenticated ex. amples of such interpositions heretofore furnished by the officers and agents of that government.
Such is the spectacle of injuries and indignities which have been heaped on our country; and such the crisis which its unexampled forbearance and conciliatory efforts have not been able to avert. It might at least have been expected, that an enlightened nation, if less urged by moral obligations, or invited by friendly dispositions on the part of the U. S. would have found in its true interests alone a sufficient motive to respect their rights and their tranquillity on the high seas ; that an enlarged policy would have favoured that free and general circulation of commerce, in which the British nation is at all times interested, and which in times of war is the best alleviation of its calamities to herself, as well as to other belligerents ; and more especially that the British Cabinet would not, for the sake of a precarious and surreptitious intercourse with hostile markets, have persevered in a course of measures which necessarily put at hazard the invaluable market of a great and growing country, disposed to cultivate the mutual advantages of an active commerce.
Other councils have prevailed. Our moderation and conciliation, have had no other effect than to encourage perseverance, and to enlarge pretensions. We behold our seafaring citizens still the dạily victims of lawless violence committed on the great common and highway of nations, even within sight of the country which owes them protection. We behold our vessels freighted with the products of our soil and industry, or returning with the honest proceeds of them, wrested from their lawful destinations, confiscated by prize courts no longer the the organs of public law, but the instruments of arbitrary edicts; and their unfortunate crews dispersed and lost, or forced or inveigled in British ports into British fleets : whilst arguments are employed, in support of these aggressions, which have no foundation but in a principle equally supporting a claim to regulate our external commerce in all cases whatsoever.
We behold, in fine, on the side of G. Britain, a state of war against the United States; and on the side of the United States a state of peace towards Great Britain.
Whether the United States shall continue passive un. der these progressive usurpations, and these accumulating wrongs; or, opposing force to force in defence of their natural rights, shall commit a just cause into the hands of the Almighty Disposer of events, avoiding all connections which might entangle it in the contests or views of other powers, and preserving a constant readiness to concur in an honorable re-establishment of peace and friendship, is a solemn question, which the constitution wisely confides to the Legislative Department of the government : In recommending it to their early deliberation, I am happy in the assurance that the decision will be worthy the enlightened and patriotic councils of a virtuous, a free, and a powerful nation.
Having presented this view of the relations of the United States with Great Britain and of the solemn alternative growing out of them, I proceed to remark that the communication last made to Congress on the subject of our relations with France will have shown that since the revocation of her decrees as they violated the neutral rights of the U. States, her government has authorised