had violated the rights of the United States in defiance of the principles of international law. But with Great Britain, he said the United States had no treaty providing rights in addition to those supposed to be guaranteed by the principle of international law. "Such was not their situation with France. With her a treaty did exist, **** a treaty sanctioned with the name and guaranteed by the promise of the Emperor that all its obligations should be inviolably preserved." The reply which Napoleon directed his minister to make is suggestive: "You must write to the American minister," he said to Champagny, * * * "that his Majesty treated with America independent and not with America enslaved; that if she submits to the King of England's decree of November 11, she renounces thereby the protection of her flag; but that if the Americans, as his Majesty cannot doubt without wounding their honor, regard this act as one of hostility the Emperor is ready to do justice in every respect."

Napoleon's reply to Armstrong had but one vulnerable point; he had not waited to see whether America would submit to the British order before issuing his Milan Decree. The only question which Napoleon had to answer in order to determine the justice of his Milan Decree, was, Would America submit? A vessel which paid a duty to the British government was certainly "denationalized." No matter what flag hung at the masthead, the vessel was to all intents and purposes a

British vessel, and the United States, if they acquiesced in the British order, were in effect a British province.

But in retaliating against England without consulting the United States, it must be admitted that Napoleon violated our rights in a merely technical sense. Why should a man who dealt with facts as he found them go through the form of waiting to see whether the United States would resist the British November order? A nation which had submitted to the robberies of Spain and England and the insults of France in 1805, to Fox's paper blockade in 1806, to the Order in Council in January, 1807, to an attack upon a national vessel five months later, and to the yearly impressment of hundreds of its citizens, was not likely to be goaded into war by one more insult, although the most outrageous in a long list.

QUESTIONS.

1. In what respect did the Berlin Decree violate the general principles of international law?

2. When was the Berlin Decree first enforced against the United States?

3. Why was its enforcement postponed so long?

4. How was Napoleon trying to conquer England?

5. Give the substance of the Order in Council issued by England in November, 1807.

6. Alexander Baring, afterwards a member of the House of Commons, said: "By attempting to confine the European trade of America to England, and by the avowal of an intention to tax that trade on its passage to the continent, we are returning to those principles, to which, even as a colony, she would not submit." Was he right?

7. What was the real object of England in all her attacks upon the commerce of the United States ?

8. What was the Milan Decree.

9. What right had Napoleon to use the phrase "America enslaved?"

CHAPTER XXXIII.

A

THE EMBARGO.

RMSTRONG'S despatches, announcing the forcement of the Berlin Decree, and English newspapers predicting a more sweeping attack upon American commerce, reached the United States in the first half of December 1807. December 17, Jefferson received a copy of the British Impressment Proclamation. He immediately called a meeting of his cabinet and submitted a first draft of a message to Congress, recommending an embargo on the ground of the Orders in Council predicted by English newspapers, as well as the official account of the enforcement of the Berlin Decree and the British Impressment Proclamation. But as the Order in Council was not officially known, Madison submitted another draft-omitting all direct mention of the expected British decree-which was adopted and sent to Congress the next day.

"The communications now made"-the letter of the French Grand Judge Regnier* and the British Impressment Proclamation-said the message, "showing the great and increasing danger with which our merchandise, our vessels and our seamen are threatened on the high seas and else

The embargo message

where by the high powers of Europe, and it being of the greatest importance to keep in safety these essential resources, I deem it my duty to recommend the subject to the consideration of Congress, who will doubtless perceive all the advantages that may be expected from an immediate inhibition of the departure of our vessels from the ports of the United States."

No reader of this history needs to be told that these were not the decisive reasons with Jefferson. The Impressment Proclamation certainly foreshadowed increased activity in dragging American sailors out of American ships, and compelling them to fight the battles of Great Britain. The letter of Regnier left no doubt that trade in English merchandise with any port on the continent of Europe, would expose American vessels to great danger. But it was not to save American sailors and American ships that Jefferson recommended the embargo. He believed that he could compel the tyrant of the seas whom Napoleon had so far been unable to conquer, and the despot who was making his will the law for the continent of Europe, to respect the rights of the United States without firing a single gun. As Napoleon was trying to starve Great Britain into submission by building a wall around the continent of Europe to English commerce, so Jefferson expected to make the two despots respect the rights of the United States by building a wall around the United States to the commerce of the rest of the world.