Sidebilder
PDF
ePub
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

CHAPTER I. The President's Manifesto....Act of Congress declaring war.....

President's proclamation.....General Bloomfield issues his or.. ders..... Commodore Rogers sails.....First prisoner, and first 'prize..... Naval force of the United States.....Schedule of the apportionment of 100,000 militia, by act of Congress of 12th April, 1812..... Instructions for private armed vessels.

On the first day of June, 1812, President Madison sent into Congress his manifesto, in the following words :

“ I communicate to Congress certain documents, being a continuation of those heretofore laid before them, on the subject of our affairs with Great Britain.

“ Without going back beyond the renewal in 1803, of the war in which Great Britain is engaged, and omitting unrepaired wrongs of inferior magnitude, the conduct of her government presents a series of acts hostile to the United States as an indpen. dent and neutral nation.

“ British cruisers have been in the continual practice of violating the American flag on the great highway of nations, and of seiz. ing and carrying off persons sailing under it; not in the exercise of a belligerent right founded on the law of nations against an enemy, but of a municipal prerogative over British subjects. British jurisdiction is thus extended to neutral vessels in a situation where no laws can operate but the law of nations and the laws of the country to which the vessels belong: and a self redress is assumed, which, if British subject were wrongfully detained and alone concerned, is that substitution of force, for a resort to the responsible sovereign, which falls within the definition of war. Could the seizure of British subjects in such cases be regarded as within the exercise of a belligerent right, the acknowledged laws of war, which forbid an article of captured property to be adjudge ed without a regular investigation before a competent tribunal, would imperiously demand the fairest trial, where the sacred rights of persons were at issue. In place of such a trial, these rights are subjected to the will of every petty commander.

“ The practice, hence, is so far from affecting British subjects alone, that, under the pretext of searching for these, thousands of American citizens, under the safeguard of public law, and of their national flag, have been torn from their country and every thing dear to them; have been dragged on board ships of war of a foreign nation, and exposed, under the severities of their discipline, to be exiled to the most distant and deadly climes, to risk their lives in the battles of their oppressors, and to be the melancholy instruments of taking away those of their own brethren.

Against this crying enormity, which Great Britain would be 60 prompt to avenge if committed against herself, the United States have in vain exhausted remonstrances and expostulations. And that no proof might be wanting of their conciliatory dispositions, and no pretext left for a continuance of the practice, the British government was formally assured of the readiness of the United States to enter into arrangements, such as could not be rejected, if the recovery of British subjects were the real and sole object. The communication passed without effect.

“ British cruizers have been in the practice also, of violating the rights, and the peace of our coasts. They hover over and harrass our departing commerce. To the most insulting pretensions they have added the most lawless proceedings in our very har. bors ; and have wantonly spilt American blood within the sanctuary of our territorial jurisdiction. The principles and rules enforced by that nation, when a neutral nation, against armed vessels or belligerepts hovering near her coasts, and disturbing her commerce, are well known. When called on, nevertheless, by the United States, to punish the greater offences committed by her own ressels, her government has bestowed on their commanders additional marks of honour and confidence.

“ Under pretended blockades, without the presence of an ade. quate force, and sometimes without the practicability of applying one, our commerce has been pluodered in every sea : the great staples of our country have been cut off from their legitimate markets; and a destructive blow aimed at our agricultural and mari: time interests. In aggravation of these predatory measures, they have been considered as in force from the dates of their notification ; a retrospective effect being thus added, as has been done ip other important cases, to the unlawfulness of the course pursus ed. And to render the outrage the more signal, these mock plockades have been reiterated and enforced in the face of official

communications from the British government, declaring, as the true definition of a legal blockade, “ that particular ports must be actually invested, and previous warning given to vessels bound to tbem pot to enter.”

« Not contevt with these occasional expedients for laying waste our neutral trade, the cabinet of Great Britain resorted, at length, to the sweeping system of blockades, under the name of Orders in Council, which has been moulded and managed as might best suit its political views, its commercial jealousies, or the avidity of British cruisers.

“ To our remonstrances against this complicated and transcendant injustice of this innovation, the first reply was, that the orders were reluctantly adopted by Great Britain as a necessary retaliation on the decrees of her enemy proclaiming a general blockade of the British isles, at a time when the naval force of that enemy dared not to issue from his own ports. She was reminded with out effect, that her own prior blockades, unsupported by an adequate naval force, actually applied and continued, were a bar to this plea : that executed edicts against millions of our property could not be retaliation on edicts, confessedly impossible to be executed: that retaliation, to be just, should fall on the party set. ting the guilty example, not on an innocent party, which was not even chargeable with an acquiescence in it.

When deprived of this slimsy veil for a prohibition of our trade with her enemy, by the repeal of his prohibition of our trade with Great Britain, her cabinet, instead of a corresponding repeal, or practical discontinuance of its orders, formally avowed a determination to persist in them against the United States, until the markets of her enemy 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 United 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 termi. nation, nor exemplified by British usage ; and that the French re. peal, 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 commerce of the United States, should not be a single special repeal in relation to the United States, but should be extended to whatever other neutral nations, unconnect

[ocr errors]

ed with them, may be affected by those decrees. And as an ad. ditional insult, they are called on for a formal disavowal of condi. tions 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 published 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 Britain.....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 navi. gation. 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 out. weigh the profits accruing from her restrictions of our commerce with other nations. And to entitle these experiments to the more favorable consideration, they were so framed as to enable 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 forever the plea of a disposition in the United States to acquiesce in those edicts, originally the sole plea of 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 invitiog 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 legalblockade, and it was notorious, that, if such a force had ever been applied, its long discontinuance had annulled the blockade in ques. tion, there could be no sufficient objection on the part of Great Britain to a formal 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 United States 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 United States would be justified in turning their measures exclusively against France. The British government would, however, neither rescind the blockade, nor declare its non-existence : nor permit its non-existence to be inferred and affirmed by the American plenipotentiary. On the contrary, by representing the blockade to be comprehended in the orders in council, the United States were compelled co to regard it in their subsequent proceedings.

“There was a period when a favorable change in the policy of the British cabinet was justly considered as established. The minister plenipotentiary of his Britannic 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 sin. cere and lasting reconciliation. The prospect, however, quickly vanished. The whole proceeding was disavowed by the British government, without any explanations which could at that time repress the belief, that the disavowal proceeded from a 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 negociation with which he was charged, a secret agent of his government was employed in intrigues, having for their object a subversion of our goveroment, 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

« ForrigeFortsett »