Faults on Both Sides; Can the House Refuse to Fund Legislation It Opposes?

Faults on Both Sides Part II:  Faults of the Federalists (continued)

3.  British Orders in Council and the Federalists’ Reaction to Jefferson’s Embargo

Frustrated in his war against Britain, Napoleon declared economic warfare with his Berlin Decree, November 21, 1806.  The decree forbade any British imports to countries allied with France. The British responded with the Orders in Council of January 7, 1807, limiting neutral trade.  On November 11, the British passed more Orders in Council.  Those orders stated that vessels destined for France, her colonies or other ports barred to the British would be seized.  Napoleon responded with the Milan Decree of December 17, 1807.  Under that decree no European country allied with France could trade with England.  Carey pointed out that American vessels had not been seized by the French.  Britain and France played a game of tit for tat with economic sanctions.   America’s neutral commerce was, in Carey’s words, “annihilated…from the face of the ocean.”  Jefferson responded with an embargo, December 22, 1807.  Federalist newspapers reacted claiming the embargo was “unnecessarily oppressive, wicked, tyrannical—dictated by Napoleon—a sacrifice to the dearest interests of the nation…and…unconstitutional.” [1]  The Federalists, Carey argued, called the opponents of the Alien and Sedition Acts “factious.”  The Federalists were just as factious in their clamor against Jefferson’s embargo.

4.  The Embargo was Necessary

American citizens and vessels were at risk of seizure on the high seas.  Carey asked, “What prudent merchant would send a vessel to sea—liable to capture whatever might be her destination?”[2]  He argued that Jefferson’s embargo protected the interests of American merchants and sailors.  He wrote that it was “prudent” and “imperiously necessary.”

Next: Were the Embargo and Force Act Constitutional?   Faults on Both Sides, Part II, continued.

Should the House Fund Legislation It Opposes?  How Washington and the House Responded to Funding the Jay Treaty

On March 2, 1796, Edward Livingston, a member of the House of Representatives, asked Washington to release papers relating to Jay’s negotiation of the treaty.  He needed them for consideration by his fellow congressmen.   Washington believed the power to negotiate treaties rested with the President and the Senate.  He refused to release the papers to the Livingston and the House, despite the arguments of Carey and his associates.[3]

In New York, Noah Webster attacked the House in his newspaper, the Minerva. Writing under the pseudonym “Harrington” Carey countered Webster’s arguments.  He placed four articles in John Fenno’s widely-read Federalist newspaper, the Gazette of the United States, instead of Benjamin Franklin Bache’s Aurora, the mouthpiece of the Democratic-Republicans.  Webster argued the treaty should not be subject to the “whims and errors of the people.” Carey countered with the “Voice of the People is the Voice of God.”   He reminded his readers the House was constitutionally responsible for initiating appropriation of funding.[4]

The Federalists accused the House of Representatives of being irresponsible.  On April 2, 1796, Madison called his fellow Democratic-Republicans into a party caucus, the first to take place in the House.  The Blount-Madison resolution confirmed the House had constitutional powers concerning treaties.  Although the House passed the resolution, questions remained.  Would those who voted for the resolutions defend their position?  Would they prevent ratification of the treaty?[5]