How Mathew Carey Singled Out John Lowell and the Clergy

Posted on July 6, 2013 by “Caius”

Carey compared the state of Massachusetts with Georgia.  He noted “The state [Massachusetts] enslaved by faction, whines, and scolds, and murmurs, and winces, and curses the administration for not defending it, although every possible  exertion was made to enfeeble the administration and render it incapable of defence.”  In contrast, “Georgia…is assailed by the most powerful combination of Indians…She neither winces—nor whines—nor curses the government—nor threatens a separation.  She rises in her strength.”[1]

After attacking Massachusetts in general, Carey zeroed in on John Lowell, Jr. the Federalists’ chief publicist. [2] In his rush to publish the Olive Branch, Carey failed to check on the author of “The Road to Ruin,” one of fifteen articles in the Examiner, published by Barent Gardenier in New York.  Carey did not know that Judge John Lowell Sr. had died in 1802.  In the Olive Branch, Carey mistakenly referred to the author of the articles as “Judge Lowell.”

Referring to him as a “blind leader of the blind” Carey criticized Lowell for bemoaning the loss of commerce in New England and the introduction of manufactures.  He berated Lowell for stating that profits at one time were fifty percent.  Carey claimed the average profits of successful commerce were less than twelve percent.  He noted that two-thirds of once successful merchants in New York and Philadelphia were bankrupt.

Carey’s goal throughout the Olive Branch was to convince Federalist farmers the Federalist judges, newspapers and clergy were mistaken, and were leading the nation into civil war.[3]  After critiquing Lowell, Carey attacked New England’s Congregationalist clergy for “pulpit politics.”  In Massachusetts and Connecticut, the Congregational Church was established.  As the official church of those states, the Congregationalist clergymen preached secession from the pulpit.

Mathew Carey was horrified.  He wrote that clergymen are “pre-eminently” charged with promoting peace and good will.  Instead in New England the clergy used their pulpits  “enkindling among [their] hearers the most baleful, the most furious passion—to prepare them for insurrection and revolution—for all the horrors of civil war.”[4]

Carey wrote that New England had inhibited the war’s success.   As a final salvo, as the Olive Branch went to press,  Carey commented  on the continuing flow of specie to Boston, and its effects on banks in New York, Philadelphia and the South.     Philadelphia banks had difficulty putting up bank notes for sale at a discount.  There were no bidders.  “If this does not open the eyes of those who have been hitherto duped by these people, they deserve to be sealed forever.”[5]

 

Who were these New England Federalists and what led them to want to secede?

Look for it Monday, July 15

 

 


[1] Mathew Carey, The Olive Branch or Faults on Both Sides,  (Philadelphia:  M. Carey, November 8, 1814) 246.

[2] James M. Banner,  Jr.  To the Hartford Convention:  The Federalists and the Origins of Party Politics in Massachusetts, (New York:  Alfred A. Knopf, 1970)28, 179.  Note:  Judge John Lowell Senior’s son, John Lowell Junior, is not to be confused with John Lowell, the son of Francis Cabot Lowell, the co-founder of a famous cotton manufacturing facility in Lowell, Massachusetts.

[3] Edward C. Carter, II, “Mathew Carey and ‘The Olive Branch,’ 1814-1818,  The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, V 89, N 4 (Oct. 1965) 406.

[4] Carey, Olive Branch, 250.

[5] Carey, Olive Branch, 252.

Posted in From The Desk, Secession | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Mathew Carey Singled Out John Lowell and the Clergy

Why Specie Flowed to New England

Posted on June 29, 2013 by “Caius”

Boston’s Federalists crippled Madison’s war efforts economically.  First, using their newspapers and Congregationalist pulpits, they urged New Englanders not to subscribe to government loans—the war bonds of the era.[1]

Carey noted that most Federalists from the mid-Atlantic did not take part in the Bostonian boycott, and many citizens and merchants from that region subscribed to government loans. [2]

Smuggling did what the boycott could not.  Large quantities of European goods were smuggled into Boston.  Citizens in the mid-Atlantic and South bought foreign goods from Boston. [3]

Specie (hard money or gold coins) flowed from New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore and points south, to Boston to buy those goods.  The problem was compounded by the lack of a national bank.  Congress failed to re-charter the First Bank of the United States in 1811.  State banks multiplied from 117 in 1811 to 212 in 1815.  Lacking the restraint of a national bank, state banks issued more notes.  The face value of bank notes in circulation increased from $66 million to $115 million from 1811 to 1815. [4]

Carey noted, “Wagons were loading with specie at the doors of our banks every week.  There have been three wagons at one time loading in Philadelphia….Bankruptcies took place to a considerable extent…some who had subscribed to the loans were unable to comply with their engagements:  and others were withheld from subscribing by the general pressure for money.”[5]

In August 1814, three months before Carey wrote the Olive Branch, the British invaded the Chesapeake.  That started bank panics in Washington and Baltimore.  Banks in those towns suspended their payment of specie.  Banks in the mid-Atlantic, South and West followed their example.  Without hard currency, banks no longer honored notes from other banks.[6]

If that were not enough, hard currency flowed from New England to Canada.  It was used to buy imported goods, British government notes and British bills of exchange.

Historian Donald Hickey notes, “Bank paper circulated at a 15 to 30 percent discount, and yet the Treasury accepted it at par for taxes and loans.  With only depreciated bank notes and treasury notes coming into the Treasury, the government had no currency that could readily be used to meet its obligations.  For all practical purposes, public credit was extinct, and the government was bankrupt.”

Who Mathew Carey Singled Out in the Last Chapter of the Olive Branch

Look for it Monday, July 8


[1] Mathew Carey, The Olive Branch or Faults on Both Sides (Philadelphia:  M. Carey November 8, 1814) 228-231.

[2] Carey, Olive Branch, 232.

[3] Carey, Olive Branch, 235-6.

[4] Carey, Olive Branch, 235; Donald R. Hickey, The War of 1812:  A Forgotten Conflict, (Urbana-Champaign, IL:  University of Illinois Press, 1989) 233.

[5] Carey, Olive Branch, 237.

[6] Hickey, War of 1812, 233.

Posted in From The Desk, Secession | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why Specie Flowed to New England

Did New England Pay More Duties than the South?

Posted on June 23, 2013 by “Caius”

Before income tax, custom duties (or tariffs) provided revenue for the United States government.

Carey lumped together the duties paid by New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island and Connecticut from 1791 until 1810:  $10, 591,000.[1]

From 1791 until 1810 Maryland paid $17, 831,000; Virginia paid $11,580,000 and South Carolina paid $11,894,000.[2]

The commercial states of Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania paid more during the same period.  Massachusetts paid $38,407,000; New York, the leader, paid $57,215,000 and Pennsylvania paid $37,305,000. [3]

While all the states of New England paid $48,998,000 their total duties do not come close to that of New York.  Carey failed to include the figures for Georgia and New Orleans.  The figures he provided did prove that even using duties as a measure of commerce, New England was not pre-eminent.

Carey argued that Southerners and Westerners were the most capable congressmen.  The middle states rarely elected “respectable figures.”  While New England sometimes sent talented representatives to Congress, New England, he wrote, had fewer accomplished politicians than Virginia, South Carolina or Kentucky.[4]

Carey wrote “Among the features of the present crisis, the most lamentable one is, that she cannot suffer the punishment due to her folly, her arrogance, her restlessness, her faction, her Jacobinism, her anti-Washingtonism, without inflicting an equal degree of misfortune on her innocent neighbors.”[5]

Why specie flowed to New England

Look for it Monday, July 1


[1] Mathew Carey, The Olive Branch:  Or Faults on Both Sides (Philadelphia:  M. Carey, November 8, 1814) 205.

[2] Carey, Olive Branch, 206.

[3] Carey, Olive Branch, 207.

[4] Carey, Olive Branch, 212.

[5] Carey, Olive Branch, 215.

Posted in From The Desk, Secession | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Did New England Pay More Duties than the South?

Did New England Have the Right to Claim Superiority in Commerce?

Posted on June 16, 2013 by “Caius”

Carey claimed his readers would be amazed at the figures he was about to report.  He wrote that he was astonished himself when he analyzed foreign and domestic exports from the United States.

Exports Foreign and Domestic            Exports Foreign and Domestic
1791-1795[1]                                                 1796-1800[2] 

Massachusetts             $21,631,000               Massachusetts              $48,387,000

New York                   $23,718,000               New York                   $72,580,000

Pennsylvania               $32,395,000               Pennsylvania               $62,252,000

Maryland                     $20,024,000               Maryland                     $60,321,000

Virginia                       $16,481,000               Virginia                      $16,480,000

South Carolina            $18,177,000               South Carolina            $34,960,000

North Carolina and     $4,660,000                 Georgia                       $6,125,000
Georgia

Carey’s readers could immediately see that Pennsylvania was the largest exporter of foreign and domestic products from 1791-1795, and New York was the largest exporter of foreign and domestic products from 1796-1800.  Massachusetts was the third largest for 1791-1795 and the fourth largest from 1796-1800.

Using an exclamation point and italics, Carey noted the exports from Massachusetts were thirty-three percent less than those from Philadelphia from 1791-1795.  Next, he tallied all the exports from the United States, and those of New England.  He determined that New England’s exports from 1791-1795 were just twenty percent of all American exports.

Analyzing the figures for 1796-1800, Carey tallied all exports, comparing them with the exports from New England.  During that five-year period, New England’s exports were less than nineteen percent of all American exports.

As Carey dashed off the first edition of the Olive Branch, he could not get the figures for 1801-1810.  He did find the figures for 1811-1813:

 

Exports Foreign and Domestic 1811-1813[3]

                                                            Foreign                        Domestic

Massachusetts                                  $8,134,000                  $11,550,000

New York                                        $6,997,000                 $22,410,000

Pennsylvania                                    $5,505,000                 $13,603,000

Maryland                                          $5,754,000                 $11,291,000

Virginia                                            $41,612                      $9,600,000

South Carolina                                 $263,295                    $9,489,000

District of Columbia                        $15,916                      $5,040,000

New Orleans                                   $110,000                     $4,527,000

Georgia                                                                               $4,717,000

While Massachusetts edged ahead of Pennsylvania in total exports, foreign and domestic, New York continued to be the largest exporter of foreign and domestic goods.  Massachusetts, however, was the largest carrier of foreign exports, which were profitable.

Carey concluded:

“The naked fact is, that New England, not satisfied with deriving all the benefits from the southern states, that she would from so many wealthy colonies–with making princely fortunes by carrying their bulky and valuable productions–with supplying them with her own manufactures, and the manufactures and productions of Europe, and the East and West Indies, to an enormous amount, and at an immense profit, has uniformly treated them with outrage, insult, and injury–and now, hostile to her vital interest, is courting her own destruction, by allowing a few restless, turbulent demagogues to lead her blindfolded to a separation, which is pregnant with certain destruction to New England.”[4]

 

Next:  Did New England Pay More Duties than the South?

Look for it Monday, June 24

 


[1] Note:  Carey rounded the last three figures of each number for easier comprehension and calculation. Mathew Carey, The Olive Branch:  Or Faults on Both Sides, (Philadelphia: M. Carey, November 8, 1814) 193-4.

[2] Carey, Olive Branch, 196-7.

[3] Carey, Olive Branch, 200-201.

[4] Carey, Olive Branch,  202.

Posted in From The Desk, Secession | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Did New England Have the Right to Claim Superiority in Commerce?

How New England Considered Itself Morally Superior to the Rest of the Country

Posted on June 9, 2013 by “Caius”

Carey admitted New Englanders did not assert their moral superiority with the same vehemence as when they claimed superiority and exclusivity in commerce.  He concluded there was nothing to be gained politically.

Carey had traveled extensively through New England.  In the Olive Branch he claimed that anyone familiar with New Englanders knew they considered their religion and morality superior to that of citizens in Philadelphia, New York or Baltimore.  Carey cited the geography written by Reverend Jedidiah Morse as proof of the region’s “vile prejudice.”

Jedidiah Morse was a Federalist and a Congregationalist clergyman.  He wrote Geography Made Easy in 1784 for his students at a girl’s school.  It was widely praised.  In 1786 he traveled to Georgia to collect information for a book on the geography of the United States for adults.  He received encouragement from Benjamin Franklin and James Madison.  Using a questionnaire, and advertising in newspapers, he asked for information.  Despite his travels in the South, Morse relied more on his written replies.  He published his American Geography in 1789.  Southerners were not pleased with his descriptions of the South.  Morse described Williamsburg as appearing “dull, forsaken, and melancholy…[with] no industry and very little appearance of religion.”[1]

Carey wrote he would have devoted more time to the conduct of Mr. Morse but that had been done by Joseph Dennie, editor of the Port Folio.  Joseph Dennie was a writer, critic and editor who was born in Boston, Massachusetts.  A dedicated Federalist who had worked for Timothy Pickering, when he was secretary of state, Dennie began publishing the Port Folio in 1801.  It became an important and influential literary journal.   Dennie criticized Morse for using his geography to stir up hostility between regions of the United States. [2]

Carey continued “The New England character for morality has been various at various times.”  He cited merchants from the mid-Atlantic and Southern states who were “on their guard against Yankee tricks when dealing with New Englanders.”[3]

Writing to convince New England’s farmers of the need for national unity, he claimed that while a few New Englanders were guilty of dishonesty, charges of “Yankee tricks” brought most New Englanders undeserved hatred.  Instead he characterized the majority of New Englanders as “sober, orderly and regular—shrewd, intelligent and well informed.”[4]

New Englanders, he concluded, may be religious and pious, but those from New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore are just as much so.

 

 

Next:  Did New England Have the Right to Claim Superiority in Commerce?

Look for it Monday, June 17

 


[1] Elizabeth Noble Shor, “Jedidiah Morse,” American National Biography.

[2] Jeffrey H. Richards, “Joseph Dennie,” American National Biography; Mathew Carey, The Olive Branch, or Faults on Both Sides, (Philadelphia:  M. Carey, November 8, 1814), 190-1.

[3] Carey, Olive Branch, 191.

[4] Carey, Olive Branch, 193.

Posted in From The Desk, Secession | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How New England Considered Itself Morally Superior to the Rest of the Country

How Newspapers in New England Inflamed Their Readers

Posted on June 2, 2013 by “Caius”

Carey asserted that New England’s newspapers, especially those in Boston, wrote essays against Jefferson’s and Madison’s administrations.  They repeatedly inflamed their readers with the following falsehoods:

  1.  New England was not agricultural; it was commercial.
  2. States in the South were only agricultural.
  3. Agricultural and commercial states were inevitably hostile.
  4. The South was “uniformly” opposed to the North.
  5. Motivated by this hostility, Congress passed measures unfavorable to New England.[1]

Carey claimed that because of this newspaper campaign, the people of New England, “proverbially orderly, quiet, sober, and rational, have been actually so highly excited as to be ripe for revolution.”[2]

Referring to the Hartford Convention in December, 1814, Carey wrote:  “A confederacy has thus been formed which, promises fair to produce a convulsion—a dissolution of the union—and a civil war, unless some very extraordinary and at present unexpected circumstance prevents it.[3]

How New England Considered Itself Morally Superior to the Rest of the Country
Look for it Monday,  June 10

 

 

 


[1] Mathew Carey, The Olive Branch or Faults on Both Sides (Philadelphia:  M. Carey, November 8, 1814) 188.

[2] Carey, Olive Branch, 189.

[3] Carey, Olive Branch, 189.

Posted in From The Desk, Secession | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Newspapers in New England Inflamed Their Readers

How the Federalists excited jealousy and discord, painting a “hateful picture” of the South

Posted on May 26, 2013 by “Caius”

 

Carey wrote the Olive Branch to appeal to moderate Federalist farmers in New England.  He aimed his criticism at wealthy Federalist merchants and the newspapers that promoted their views. [1]

He singled out Boston, characterizing it as the “seat of discontent, complaint and turbulence.”  He noted that when the United States was at peace, Bostonians wanted war.  When the nation was at war, Bostonians wanted peace.  He argued that Boston’s commerce was “insignificant” in comparison with that of New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore or Charleston, yet its political influence was greater than the four other cities combined. He noted the Bostonians exerting undue influence were “few in number.”   They were, however, wealthy, talented, energetic and influential.   Their sway, he wrote, “has brought us to the very verge of dissolution of that union, with its awful consequence, a civil war.”[2]

A handful of Federalists, Carey asserted, intentionally set out to demonize the South.  He accused these prominent Federalists of working for eighteen years to “poison the minds” of New Englanders toward Southerners.[3]  Even today, the excerpt Carey included from the Connecticut Courant, published in 1796, is shocking:

“Negroes are in all respects, except in regard to life and death, the cattle of the citizens of the southern states.  If they were good for food, the probability is, that even the power of destroying their lives would be enjoyed by their owners, as fully as it is over the lives of their cattle.  It cannot be, that their laws prohibit the owners from killing their slaves, because those slaves are human beings, or because it is a moral evil to destroy them.  If that were the case, how can they justify their being treated, in all other respects like brutes?  For it is in this point of view alone, that negroes in the southern states are considered in fact as different from cattle.  They are bought and sold—they are fed or kept hungry—they are clothed, or reduced to nakedness—they are beaten, turned out to the fury of the elements and torn from their dearest connexions, with as little remorse as if they were beasts of the field.”[4]

 

To write then on issue of slavery and today, racism, is to touch the third rail of American political debate.  It excites conflict and discord.  It polarizes any discussion.

Carey did not own slaves, and did not promote slavery.  He supported the American Colonization Society.[5]  He believed re-settlement in Liberia was the only way free African Americans could gain true equality.  He published the works of abolitionist Anthony Benezet in his magazine, the American Museum.[6]

What he objected to was the spirit of the writer in the Connecticut Courant, and others from New England.  He wrote:

“The unholy and demoniac spirit that inspired the writer of the…vile libel, has been from that hour to the present time incessantly employed to excite hostility between the different sections of the union.  To such horrible lengths has this spirit been carried, that many paragraphs have occasionally appeared in the Boston papers intended and calculated to excite the negroes of the southern states to rise and massacre their masters.”[7]

Appealing again to Federalist farmers, Carey noted that New England had benefited from commerce with the South.  New Englanders, he wrote, “did not feel disposed to quarrel with [Southerners] for their supposed want of a due degree of piety or morality.”  Carey argued  a “deeper game was requisite to be played.”[8]

 

Next:  What was the deeper game the Federalists played?
Look for it Monday, June 3

 

 

 


[1] Edward C. Carter, II, “Mathew Carey and ‘The Olive Branch,’ 1814-1818, The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, V. 89, N. 4 (October, 1965) 406.

[2] Mathew Carey, The Olive Branch or Faults on Both Sides (Philadelphia:  M. Carey, November 8, 1814) 185-6.

[3] Carey, Olive Branch, 186.

[4] Carey, Olive Branch, 187.

[5] Mathew Carey “Essays on African Colonization,” Miscellaneous Essays, Originally Published in 1830 (New York, Burt Franklin, n.d.) 214.

[6] Earl L. Bradsher, Mathew Carey:  Editor, Author and Publisher,  A Study in American Literary Development, (New York, Columbia University Press, 1912) 6.

[7] Carey, Olive Branch, 187.

[8] Carey, Olive Branch, 187-8.

Posted in From The Desk, Newspaper Politics, Secession | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How the Federalists excited jealousy and discord, painting a “hateful picture” of the South

What the Federalists Did When Congress Declared War

Posted on May 19, 2013 by “Caius”

The Federalists formed the “Peace Party.”  Its purpose was to force the government into declaring peace.  The Federalists hoped to do this by condemning the war, Madison and his administration, Congress, and anyone who supported the war.

To counter their efforts, Carey printed a table of issues when regions of the country and political factions clamored for war:[1]

In 1797, after America’s ships were plundered, the French snubbed America’s ambassadors and tried to extort money, there was an outcry for war against France.

In 1803, after the right of deposit at New Orleans was denied, those regions affected advocated war with Spain.

In 1806, when Britain enforced their Rule of 1756, which denied trade to neutral nations trading with its enemies, factions clamored for war with Great Britain.

In 1807, when the Chesapeake was attacked, outraged Americans advocated war with Britain.

In 1812, when American ships bound for Europe with produce  for 50,000,000 Europeans were seized by the British, Madison and Congress declared war against Great Britain.

Carey urged his readers to compare the seriousness of the issues.  He argued that the reasons for war in 1812 “far outweighed” the others.  “The difference between the outrages is as great as between mere assault and battery and absolute murder,” he concluded.[2]

Next:  How the Federalists excited jealousy and discord, painting a “hateful picture” of the South.

Look for it Monday, May 27


[1] Mathew Carey, The Olive Branch, Or Faults on Both Sides (Philadelphia: M. Carey, November 8, 1814) 183.

[2] Carey, Olive Branch,  184

Posted in From The Desk, Secession | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What the Federalists Did When Congress Declared War

The War of 1812: Whose Fault Was It?

Posted on May 5, 2013 by “Caius”

“The first principle of all republican government—and of all government founded on reason and justice,” Carey wrote “is that the will of the majority, fairly and constitutionally expressed, is to be the law of the land.  To that the minority is sacredly bound to submit.”  Any other approach, he continued, would result in the overthrow of the government and anarchy.[1]

He claimed the Federalists promoted the will of the majority while they were in power.  Once out of power, they abandoned it altogether.  Federalist writers characterized the War of 1812 as “unholy—wicked—base—perfidious—unjust—cruel—and corrupt.” [2]

British papers alleged that the United States was the belligerent.  Federalist papers repeated it.  Responding to those allegations, Carey argued that impressment alone justified war.  If European nations had impressed English sailors, Britain would have gone to war with them.   The British seized American ships bound for France, Holland or Northern Italy.   At the same time, Britain issued licenses to her merchant marine for trade on the Continent.    That trade was illegal if carried in American vessels.   Britain used Napoleon’s Berlin and Milan Decrees as the excuse to violate American neutrality.[3]

To bolster his arguments, Carey reprinted excerpts:

“…the Berlin and Milan decrees [were] used as a mere pretext….The plain design of the British government was to deprive France of the benefits of external commerce, unless the profits of it were divided with [Britain].”[4]
Federalist Senator James Bayard II of Delaware, October 11, 1811

 “…the Orders in Council are wholly unjustifiable, let them be bottomed either on the principle of retaliation or of self preservation.”[5]
Federalist Senator James Lloyd of Massachusetts, February 28, 1812  

 “…the sentiment of indignation throughout the country at the continuation of the orders in council is loud and universal from both parties!…It is too true…that our administration have become willing dupes to the insidious policy of Napoleon…the scrupulous adherence of your cabinet to an empty punctilio, will too probably unite the whole country in opposition to your nation…” [6]
Federalist Harrison Gray Otis to a friend in London, January 14, 1812

How the British accused the United States of starting the war:

“It is well known to the world, that [Britain] was not the aggressor in [the War of 1812].” [7]
British Prince Regent, November, 1813

“Now that the tyrant, Bonaparte has been consigned to infamy, there is no public feeling in this country stronger than that of indignation against the Americans…”[8]
                                      The London Times, April, 1814

How the Federalists repeated it, blaming Madison and the influence of Napoleon:

“The British orders in council and the casual abuses arising from the practice of impressment, have ceased to be considered by impartial men as the causes of the present war…The real causes of the war must be traced to …the policy of Washington and the friends and framers of the constitution; to implacable animosity against those men…to the influence of worthless foreigners over the press, and the deliberations of the government in all its branches; — to a jealousy of commercial states [New York and New England] fear of their power, contempt of their pursuits, and ignorance of their true character and importance; –to the cupidity of certain states  [the West] for the wilderness reserved for the miserable aborigines;–to a violent passion for conquest…and, above all, to the delusive estimates of the power…of France and Great Britain, and a determined hostility towards [Britain] as the firmest basis of party power.”[9]
                             House of Representatives of Massachusetts, June 1814

“In the prosecution of a war founded in falsehood, declared without necessity and whose real object was extent of territory by unjust conquests, and to aid the late tyrant of Europe [Napoleon] in his view of aggrandizements, our rulers could expe[c]t no aid from the people of this commonwealth excepting only that which they had a strict “right by the constitution to demand.”[10]
                             Senate of Massachusetts, June 1814

Next:  Why Carey Changed His Mind While Writing the Olive Branch

 

 

 

 


[1]  Mathew Carey, The Olive Branch or Faults on Both Sides, Federal and Democratic (Philadelphia: M. Carey November 8, 1814) 170.

[2] Carey, Olive Branch, 172.

[3] Carey, Olive Branch, 175.

[4] Carey, Olive Branch, 175-6.

[5] Carey, Olive Branch, 176.

[6] Carey, Olive Branch, 175-177.

[7] Carey, Olive Branch, 178.

[8] Carey, Olive Branch, 179.

[9] Carey, Olive Branch, 178. (Reply of the House of Representatives to the speech of Massachusetts Governor Strong.)

[10] Carey, Olive Branch, 178-179.  (Answer of the Senate of Massachusetts to Governor Strong’s speech.)

 

Posted in From The Desk, Secession | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The War of 1812: Whose Fault Was It?

Who Acted with More Virtue, the Democratic-Republicans or the Federalists?

Posted on April 28, 2013 by “Caius”

Faults on Both Sides:  A Comparison

Faults of the Democratic-Republicans:

1.  The Federal Constitution:  Fearing tyranny, they failed to give the federal government enough power when writing the Constitution.

2.  The Navy:  They objected to forming a navy.

3.  Treaty with England:  Jefferson rejected Pinckney and Monroe’s treaty with Britain without following proper procedure.  He should have given it to the Senate for debate.

4.  Separation of States:  Jefferson failed to ask Congress to pass laws to prevent newspapers from publishing articles promoting secession.

5.  The Embargo:  Jefferson did not enforce the Embargo effectively in New England.  That allowed dishonest businessmen to profit while those who were honest suffered.

6.  The Alien and Sedition Laws and Eight Percent Loan:  The Democratic-Republicans objected to the Alien and Sedition laws, which in retrospect, were necessary for the support of the government.  A newspaper editor was jailed for objecting to Adams borrowing money at eight percent.  During the Jefferson and Madison administrations the United States borrowed money at rates higher than eight percent

7.  The Erskine Arrangement:  If Democratic-Republicans were influenced by the French, Madison’s cabinet would have rejected the ill-fated Erskine Arrangement.  [Editor’s note:  Carey fails to mention that Madison’s cabinet would have objected to the arrangement if they knew Erskine was inexperienced and ignorant.]

8.     War with England:  After war was declared, the British, Carey claimed, offered Madison an arrangement for armistice.  Madison should have accepted it.

9.     Loans:  Congress used loans to finance the War of 1812, damaging public credit.

10.    Appointment of Mr. Gallatin:  Carey faulted Madison for appointing Gallatin to the post when he was needed in Washington.  He faulted Gallatin for accepting it.

11.   Negotiation at Gothenburg:  Madison chose Gothenburg for the site of negotiation.  He should have chosen London.

Faults of the Federalists:

1.      The Federal Constitution:  Fearing anarchy, they sought to give the federal government as much power as possible when writing the Constitution.  They criticized Democratic-Republicans for opposing social order, property rights, religion and morality. 

2.     Attacks on America’s Ships:  At first the Federalists clamored for war with Britain, outraged at impressment.  After the Orders in Council of 1807 were enacted, they changed their minds.   They no longer favored war.

3.  British Orders in Council and the Federalists’ Reaction to Jefferson’s Embargo:  During the Alien and Sedition Acts Federalists called its opponents “factious.”  During Jefferson’s embargo, the Federalists were just as factious.

4.  The Embargo was Necessary:  It protected the interests of American sailors.  It was, Carey wrote, “prudent’ and “imperiously necessary.”

5.  The Embargo and “Force Act” were Constitutional:   During Washington’s administration, Congress passed an embargo.  During Adams’ administration, acts similar to the embargo law were passed.  The Federalists did not object to the constitutionality of these acts.

6.  Incorrect Allegations Concerning Impressment:  Federalist writers alleged that Jefferson’s malice toward Britain caused impressments.  They wrote that Madison exaggerated claims about impressments, which Carey argued, were untrue.

7.  The Erskine Arrangement:  After the British rejected the Erskine Arrangement, Federalists claimed that Madison’s cabinet was aware of Erskine’s ignorance and inexperience.  Federalists failed to mention the British violated a contract.  Federalists railed against the French influence on the Democratic-Republicans.

Next:  The War of 1812:  Whose Fault Was It?

Look for it Monday, May 6, 2013

Posted in From The Desk, Secession | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Who Acted with More Virtue, the Democratic-Republicans or the Federalists?