.

treaty, Louisiana had been ceded to France. Bonaparte, being in want of money, proposed to our Minister in that country, (R. R. Livingston,) to sell the whole of Louisiana. Although our Minister, (Mr. Monroe having been sent to aid Mr. Livingston,) were not authorized to buy the whole territory; yet, as no treaty could bind the United States until ratified by our Government, terms for the whole were agreed upon by the parties; and the treaty was ratified by both Governments. Mr. Jefferson, though he admitted the purchase and annexation to be unauthorized by the Constitution, thought the acquisition too valuable to be lost, signed the treaty, and proposed an ex post facto amendment of the Constitution to give sanction to the measure; but it was never attempted. It was, however, argued by some, and is believed by many at the present day, that the power to acquire territory by war, purchase, or treaty, properly and naturally belongs to every independent sovereignty. It was stipulated in the treaty, that the inhabitants of the ceded territory should be incorporated into the Union, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens; and that, in the mean time, they should be protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and religion.

In 1804, the territory was divided; the South part of it being called Orleans, the residue, the District of Louisiana. The act prohibited the bringing of slaves into the Territory of Orleans from beyond the limits of the United States, or from any of the States such as had been imported since the 1st of May, 1798. Thus early was recognized the power of the General Government over Slavery in the Territories of the United States.

It had been the policy of Mr. Jefferson's predecessors to encourage an effective fortification of our harbors, and the maintenance of an efficient navy. Mr. Jefferson recommended a less expensive system of defense, which was adopted, and which came to be called the "gun-boat system." In 1803, an act was passed, authorizing the President to procure the building of fifteen small vessels, called gun-boats, for which $50,000 were appropriated. His plan was to build about two hundred and fifty of these boats,

twenty-five every year. The aggregate cost was estimated at about one million of dollars. A substitute was also to be provided for the usual expensive fortifications. This plan of defense, however, proved a failure. Before it was completed, Congress refused to make further appropriations for building gun-boats; and the measure was abandoned.

During the new war between France and Great Britain, which commenced in 1803, and in which most of the powers of Europe became involved, the merchant vessels of the belligerent nations, from their exposure to capture, were withdrawn from the ocean. This gave to the United States and other neutral maritime nations an unusually profitable carrying trade with the belligerent countries, on established principles of national law recognized by Great Britain herself: that the goods of a neutral, consisting of articles not contraband of war, in neutral vessels, employed in a direct trade between a neutral and a belligerent country, are protected, except in ports invested or blockaded. A large portion of this trade consisted in carrying goods from colonies of the enemies of Great Britain to their parent countries. Great Britain alleged that this trade was unlawful, on the principle that a trade from a colony to its parent country, not being permitted to other nations in time of peace, can not be made lawful in time of war; and an order was issued for the capture of our vessels; and a large number were captured. One object of this measure was to distress Napoleon and his allies.

The President, January, 1806, laid the subject before Congress; and he also noticed the impressment of our seamen by Great Britain. It had been her practice-and she claimed it as her right-to search American vessels in pursuit of British seamen ; and, in so doing, had taken many of our own native citizens, and forcibly impressed them into her service.

In May, 1806, were issued the celebrated British orders in council, declaring the principal ports on the Western coast of the continent of Europe in a state of blockade. These orders were soon followed, on the part of Napoleon, by the Berlin decree, (so called from its having been issued by him while in that city on his way northward,) declaring the British Islands in a state of blockade, and prohibiting

all commerce with them. It was his purpose to stop all trade between Great Britain and the continent. A more stringent order than the first was then issued by the British Government, which was followed by the Milan decree of Napoleon. Both Governments carried their restrictive measures to the greatest extremes, to the destruction of American commerce. These blockades were unlawful, not being maintained by adequate force. Hence they were, as they were termed, mere paper blockades." It was by some supposed to be the object of both parties to drive the Americans from their neutral position.

The seizure of our ships, cargoes, and men, induced Congress, in December, 1807, on recommendation of President Jefferson, to pass the famous Embargo law, which prohibited American vessels, in order to their safety, from leaving our ports. Perhaps another object of the measure was a preparation for war.

This controversy had become a party question in this country. The Federalists, from certain facts which had been elicited, suspected that the object of the Embargo was to aid Bonaparte in crippling the commerce of Great Britain. France having a comparatively limited foreign commerce, the blow would fall with greater weight upon her enemy, whose foreign trade was very extensive. The suspicion of Mr. Jefferson's subserviency to France was strengthened by certain letters; one Mr. Armstrong, our Minister in France, to Mr. Madison, our Secretary of State, stating that Napoleon had declared, that "the Americans should be compelled to take the positive character of either allies or enemies." The letter also stated, that several of our ships and cargoes had been confiscated, contrary to previous assurances given. Another of these letters was from Mr. Canning, the British Minister of Foreign Affairs, to Mr. Pinkney, our Minister in London, giving assurance of a friendly disposition towards this country, and expressing a strong desire "to accommodate the orders in council, as far as was consistent with their object, to the feelings and interests of the American Government and people." These two documents, so different in their character, the President did not see fit to publish; and their suppression was attributed to the fear that the people, seeing the con

trast between them, would disapprove the course of the Government toward the two countries. And since the death of Mr. Jefferson, and the publication of his correspondence, reference has been made to a letter from him to a friend in 1808, in which he pronounces the condemnation of our vessels taken by the French privateers piracy, which, the Federalists thought, rendered her equally deserving of retaliatory legislation.

The embargo affected very seriously the shipping of New England; and the complaints in that quarter were loud and unceasing during its continuance. It was repealed in March, 1809, by the non-intercourse law, which prohibited all intercourse with France and Great Britain; but provided, that, if either nation should so revoke or modify her edicts as that they should cease to violate our neutral commerce, trade with that nation should be renewed.

In August, 1810, Mr. Madison being President, our Minister in Paris was informed, that the Berlin and Milan decrees were revoked, and would cease to have effect after the 1st of November following; stating as a reason for the revocation, that our Congress had retraced its steps, and had engaged to oppose Great Britain, which had refused to acknowledge the rights of neutrals; and stating, also, as a condition of the repeal of the decrees, that "the English shall revoke their orders in council, and renounce the new principles of blockade which they have wished to establish or that the United States shall cause their rights to be respected by the English." Considering this as sufficient evidence of the repeal of the decrees, the President, by proclamation, declared the restrictions imposed by the act of May to be removed as against France; and Congress passed an act declaring them in force against Great Britain.

The British Government did not consider this conditional repeal such as to justify the repeal of the orders in council. A long correspondence between our Government and that of Great Britain ensued, for which the reader is referred to our larger histories.

There being so much doubt as to the revocation of the French decrees, Mr. Smith, Secretary of State, prepared a letter to the French Minister at Washington, in which,

among a long list of questions, he inquired whether the decrees had been revoked; or whether he could give any assurance in relation to their revocation or modification. But the President interdicted the sending of the letter.

War was declared the 18th of June, 1812. The vote in the Senate was 19 to 13; in the House, 79 to 49. Of those who voted against the war, 15 were Republicans. Before the adjournment, the Federal members of the House, with the exception of 2, joined in an address to their constituents, in which they reviewed the controversy between the three Governments, with the view of showing the impropriety and injustice of declaring war, and of making a distinction between France and Great Britain. On the latter point, they say: "If honor demands a war with England, what opiate lulls that honor to sleep over the wrongs done us by France? On land, robberies, seizures, imprisonments by French authority; at sea, pillage, sinkings, burnings under French orders. These are notorious. Are they unfelt because they are French? Is any alleviation to be found in the correspondence and humiliations of the present Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States at the French court? In his communications to our Government, as before the public, where is the cause for selecting France as the friend of our country, and England the enemy ?"

Nearly the whole of the Federal party was opposed to the declaration of war; but many gave it their support as a measure of the Government. Among the men of distinction of this latter class, was John Adams.

A few days after the declaration, a copy of the decree of Napoleon, dated April 28, 1811, was received, repealing the Berlin and Milan decrees. The British Minister soon took his departure, bearing a letter proposing to the British Government a suspension of hostilities with a view to an adjustment. Among the conditions of the proposed armistice, one was, that the impressment of our seamen should be discontinued. But before the British Minister, (Mr. Foster,) reached home, our Government was informed. that the orders in council had been revoked, the revocation to take effect the 1st of August next. The only remaining grievance then to be redressed by war, was that of impressment a grievance, however, of great magnitude