War And Peace 1796 181539
Roseanne Devon
Yet, while American Nationalism was Marshall'sone and only great conception, and the fostering ofit the purpose of his life, he was wholly out of sympathywith the National movement that led to oursecond conflict with Great Britain, and against thecontinuance of it. He heartily shared the opinionof the Federalist leaders that the War of 1812 wasunnecessary, unwise, and unrighteous.
By the time France and England had renewed[Pg 2]hostilities in 1803, the sympathies of these men hadbecome wholly British. The excesses of the FrenchRevolution had started them on this course offeeling and thinking. Their detestation of Jefferson,their abhorrence of Republican doctrines, their resentmentof Virginia domination, all hastened theirprogress toward partisanship for Great Britain.They had, indeed, reverted to the colonial state ofmind, and the old phrases, "the mother country,""the protection of the British fleet,"[1] were foreveron their lips.
So, too, thought John Marshall. No man, excepthis kinsman Thomas Jefferson, cherished a prejudicemore fondly than he. Perhaps no better exampleof first impressions strongly made and tenaciouslyretained can be found than in these two men.Jefferson was as hostile as Marshall was friendly toGreat Britain; and they held exactly opposite sentimentstoward France. Jefferson's strongest title[Pg 3]to immortality was the Declaration of Independence;nearly all of his foreign embroilments hadbeen with British statesmen. In British conservatismhe had found the most resolute opposition tothose democratic reforms he so passionately championed,and which he rightly considered the manifestationsof a world movement.[3]
And Jefferson adored France, in whose entrancingcapital he had spent his happiest years. There hisradical tendencies had found encouragement. Helooked upon the French Revolution as the breakingof humanity's chains, politically, intellectually, spiritually.[4]He believed that the war of the allied governmentsof Europe against the new-born FrenchRepublic was a monarchical combination to extinguishthe flame of liberty which France had lighted.
He had also become obsessed with an almost religiousdevotion to the rights of property, to steadygovernment by "the rich, the wise and good,"[8] to"respectable" society. These convictions Marshallfound most firmly retained and best defended in thecommercial centers of the East and North. Thestoutest champions of Marshall's beloved stabilityof institutions and customs were the old Federalistleaders, particularly of New England and NewYork. They had been his comrades and associatesin bygone days and continued to be his intimates.
In short, John Marshall had become the personificationof the reaction against popular governmentthat followed the French Revolution. With him andmen of his cast of mind, Great Britain had come torepresent all that was enduring and good, and Franceall that was eruptive and evil. Such was his outlookon social and political life when, after thesetraditional European foes were again at war, theirspoliations of American commerce, violations ofAmerican rights, and insults to American honoronce more became flagrant; and such continued tobe his opinion and feeling after these aggressionshad become intolerable.
Since the adoption of the Constitution, nearlyall Americans, except the younger generation, hadbecome re-Europeanized in thought and feeling.Their partisanship of France and Great Britainrelegated America to a subordinate place in theirminds and hearts. Just as the anti-Federalists and[Pg 5]their successors, the Republicans, had been moreconcerned in the triumph of revolutionary Franceover "monarchical" England than in the maintenanceof American interests, rights, and honor, sonow the Federalists were equally violent in theirchampionship of Great Britain in her conflict withthe France of Napoleon. Precisely as the Frenchpartisans of a few years earlier had asserted thatthe cause of France was that of America also,[9]the Federalists now insisted that the success ofGreat Britain meant the salvation of the UnitedStates.
"Great Britain is fighting our battles and the battlesof mankind, and France is combating for thepower to enslave and plunder us and all the world,"[10]wrote that faithful interpreter of extreme NewEngland Federalism, Fisher Ames, just after theEuropean conflict was renewed. Such opinions werenot confined to the North and East. In South Carolina,John Rutledge was under the same spell.Writing to "the head Quarters of good Principles,"Boston, he avowed that "I have long consideredEngland as but the advanced guard of ourCountry.... If they fall we do."[11] Scores of quotationsfrom prominent Federalists expressive of thesame views might be adduced.[12] Even the assault on[Pg 6]the Chesapeake did not change or even soften them.[13]On the other hand, the advocates of France asardently upheld her cause, as fiercely assailed GreatBritain.[14]
Upon the renewal of the European conflict, GreatBritain announced wholesale blockades of Frenchports,[15] ordered the seizure of neutral ships whereverfound carrying on trade with an enemy ofEngland;[16] and forbade them to enter the harborsof immense stretches of European coasts.[17] In reply,Napoleon declared the British Islands to beunder blockade, and ordered the capture in anywaters whatsoever of all ships that had enteredBritish harbors.[18] Great Britain responded with theOrders in Council of 1807 which, in effect, prohib[Pg 7]itedthe oceans to neutral vessels except such astraded directly with England or her colonies; andeven this commerce was made subject to a specialtax to be paid into the British treasury.[19] Napoleon'sswift answer was the Milan Decree,[20] which,among other things, directed all ships submittingto the British Orders in Council to be seized andconfiscated in the ports of France or her allies, orcaptured on the high seas.
All these "decrees," "orders," and "instructions"were, of course, in flagrant violation of internationallaw, and were more injurious to America than to allother neutrals put together. Both belligerents boredown upon American commerce and seized Americanships with equal lawlessness.[21] But, since GreatBritain commanded the oceans,[22] the United Statessuffered far more severely from the depredationsof that Power.[23] Under pressure of conflict, Great[Pg 8]Britain increased her impressment[24] of Americansailors. In effect, our ports were blockaded.[25]
Jefferson's lifelong prejudice against Great Britain[26]would permit him to see in all this nothing but asordid and brutal imperialism. Not for a moment didhe understand or consider the British point of view.England's "intentions have been to claim the oceanas her conquest, & prohibit any vessel from navigatingit but on ... tribute," he wrote.[27] Nevertheless,he met Great Britain's orders and instructions withhesitant recommendations that the country be putin a state of defense; only feeble preliminary stepswere taken to that end.[Pg 9]
When the Leopard attacked the Chesapeake,[29]Jefferson issued his proclamation reciting the "enormity"as he called it, and ordering all British armedvessels from American waters.[30] The spirit of Americawas at last aroused.[31] Demands for war rangthroughout the land.[32] But they did not come fromthe lips of Federalists, who, with a few exceptions,protested loudly against any kind of retaliation.
John Lowell, unequaled in talent and learningamong the brilliant group of Federalists in Boston,wrote a pamphlet in defense of British conduct.[33][Pg 10]It was an uncommonly able performance, bright, informed,witty, well reasoned. "Despising the threatsof prosecution for treason," he would, said Lowell,use his right of free speech to save the country froman unjustifiable war. What did the Chesapeakeincident, what did impressment of Americans, whatdid anything and everything amount to, comparedto the one tremendous fact of Great Britain'sstruggle with France? All thoughtful men knew thatGreat Britain alone stood between us and thatslavery which would be our portion if France shouldprevail.[34]
Lowell's sparkling essay well set forth the intenseconviction of nearly all leading Federalists. Gileswas not without justification when he branded themas "the mere Anglican party."[35] The London presshad approved the attack on the Chesapeake, applaudedAdmiral Berkeley, and even insisted uponwar against the United States.[36] American Federalistswere not far behind the Times and the MorningPost.
Jefferson, on the contrary, vividly stated thethought of the ordinary American: "The Englishbeing equally tyrannical at sea as he [Bonaparte] ison land, & that tyranny bearing on us in every pointof either honor or interest, I say, 'down with Eng[Pg 11]land'and as for what Buonaparte is then to do tous, let us trust to the chapter of accidents, I cannot,with the Anglomen, prefer a certain present evil toa future hypothetical one."[37]
Here was an exercise of National power such asJohn Marshall had never dreamed of. The effectwas disastrous. American ocean-carrying trade wasruined; British ships were given the monopoly ofthe seas.[41] And England was not "downed," as Jeffersonexpected. In fact neither France nor GreatBritain relaxed its practices in the least.[42]
As soon as Congress convened in November, 1808,New England opened the attack on Jefferson's retaliatorymeasures. Senator James Hillhouse ofConnecticut offered a resolution for the repeal of theobnoxious statutes. "Great Britain was not to bethreatened into compliance by a rod of coercion,"he said.[44] Pickering made a speech which mightwell have been delivered in Parliament.[45] Britishmaritime practices were right, the Embargo wrong,and principally injurious to America.[46] The Orders inCouncil had been issued only after Great Britain"had witnessed ... these atrocities" committed byNapoleon and his plundering armies, "and seen the[Pg 14]deadly weapon aimed at her vitals." Yet Jeffersonhad acted very much as if the United States were avassal of France.[47]
b1e95dc632