Was Federalist Criticism of Madison Unjust?

Posted on April 21, 2013 by “Caius”

Faults of the Federalists:  (continued)

7.  The Erskine Arrangement Revisited

To recap:  The Federalists accused Jefferson and Madison of being influenced by the French.  This accusation was disturbing.  The atrocities of the French Revolution were a recent memory.  Carey pointed out that when David Erskine, the British minister to the United States, negotiated with President Madison, they reached an agreement.  The Federalists praised Madison and wined and dined him in Washington. Unfortunately Erskine ignored instructions from his superiors.  The British recalled him, and rejected his agreement with Madison.

The Federalists turned on Madison.  After the British rejected the Erskine Arrangement, “[the Federalists] were unanimous in their abuse of [Madison] for this very arrangement.” [1]

Carey used documents to counter their arguments.  He reprinted the correspondence between David Erskine, the British envoy, and Robert Smith, Secretary of State.

On April 17, 1809, Erskine wrote to Smith offering the United States “on an equal footing with all other belligerents” and “honourable reparation” for the British attack on the Chesapeake.  Erskine also mentioned the Non-intercourse Act stating the “…terms of satisfaction and reparation…in the same spirit of conciliasion.”  Smith responded that Madison accepted the letter, and would consider the offer when its promises were fulfilled. [2]

One day later, April 18, 1809, Erskine replied to Smith.   The British would send an envoy extraordinary to negotiate a treaty.  If the United States would renew trade with Britain, the British would “withdraw their Orders in Council” of January and November 1807.  That day, Smith replied if the British sent a special envoy to negotiate a treaty, and withdraw its Orders in Council, the United States would end the Non-intercourse Act.  It would resume trade with Great Britain.[3]

The next day, April 19, 1809, Erskine wrote “I am authorized to declare, that his majesty’s orders in council of January and November 1807, have been withdrawn…on the 10th day of June next.”  Smith replied that President Madison would begin trade with Britain on June 10, 1809.[4]

Carey included James Madison’s proclamation, issued that day.  It announced that with British withdrawal of the Orders in Council, the United States, in the thirty-third year of its independence, would resume trade with Great Britain on June 10, 1809.[5]

Next, Carey summarized the eulogies of the Federalists, reprinting quotations from politicians and newspaper editors:

“For bringing about this state of things, I yield my hearty approbation to the president of the United States; and I believe that when none of us could see the end of our troubles, the President was secretly conducting us to the late happy results.”[6]

                                                           Barent Gardenier
New York Federalist in the House of Representatives

“The government of Great Britain is accused of treachery, and it is said she never will make a treaty or behave honourably and fairly towards this county…The reconciliation with England is a bitter pill to many of our democrats.”[7]

                                                         Federal Republican                                        

Once the British had rejected the Erskine Arrangement the Federalists claimed that Madison’s cabinet knew all along that Erskine had not followed his instructions “taking advantage of his ignorance and inexperience.” The Federalists did not mention the British had violated a contract.  Instead they “turned the tide of public indignation against Mr. Madison.”[8]

If Erskine had no instructions, or went beyond them, Carey argued, the provisions of the arrangement were beneficial to England.  Commerce with Britain was restored.  The British made reparations for the Chesapeake incident.  They repealed their Orders in Council.  Commerce with France was prohibited.

Carey  reprinted some of the scathing criticisms from the Federalist newspapers following the British rejection of Erskine’s Arrangement:

“For our part, we have had but one opinion from the commencement of this mysterious affair—and we have made bold to express it.  It is, that Mr. Erskine acted contrary to his instructions—and that the secretary Smith knew what these instructions were.”

                                                          Federal Republican

Carey argued the Non-intercourse Act put Britain on an equal footing with France.  That is why Erskine was willing to negotiate.

“[Non-intercourse] is cowardly; for it is a base attempt to bring on a war with Great Britain—It is FRENCH in every feature. —It is intended as a measure of hostility against Great Britain.[10]

                                                          Boston Repertory

 

 

 

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

Look for it Monday, April  29, 2013


[1] Mathew Carey, The Olive Branch or Faults on Both Sides, Federal and Democratic (Philadelphia: M. Carey November 8, 1814) 155.

[2] Carey,  Olive Branch, 155-7.

[3] Carey, Olive Branch, 158-9.

[4] Carey, Olive Branch, 160.

[5] Carey, Olive Branch, 161.

[6] Carey, Olive Branch, 162.

[7] Carey, Olive Branch, 164.

[8] Carey, Olive Branch, 167.

[9] Carey, Olive Branch, 168-9.

[10] Carey, Olive Branch, 169.

Posted in From The Desk | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Was Federalist Criticism of Madison Unjust?

Faults on Both Sides: Incorrect Allegations Concerning Impressment

Posted on April 14, 2013 by “Caius”

Faults of the Federalists (continued)

6.  Incorrect Allegations Concerning Impressment

When Britain went to war with France in 1793, the British Navy had 16,600 sailors.  As the war continued demand for seamen increased.  By 1797, the number of sailors in the British Navy had ballooned to 119,000.  It remained at that level for the next ten years.   The Navy lost about 12,000 sailors each year to death, disease and desertion.  The Navy, with low wages and harsh discipline, competed with the British merchant marine for sailors.  Demand for sailors was double the supply of available Englishmen.[1]

Desperate but dominant, the British Navy flagrantly ignored the rights of men on land and at sea.  British naval thugs called “press gangs” boarded ships and hunted down victims on the streets, on wharves and in taverns.  Armed with clubs, and ready to use their fists, they impressed men against their will to serve in the British Navy.[2]  French privateers fought back, plundering British merchant ships.  British insurers became reluctant to write policies for ships in their nation’s merchant marine.

Americans exploited the opportunity.  They became the largest carriers of maritime trade in the Atlantic.  New England and New York led the way.   American shipping, measured in tonnage, dramatically increased from 558,000 tons in 1802 to 981,000 tons in 1811.[3]

American merchants also needed sailors.  Their trade was profitable.  They paid handsome wages in better working conditions than those of the British Navy.  Those reasons enticed British sailors to desert.[4]   From 1803 to 1811, the British impressed an estimated 10,000 naturalized or American sailors to fight the Napoleonic wars.[5]

Federalist writers alleged Jefferson’s malice toward Britain caused the impressments.   They claimed that impressment was “incalculably exaggerated by him and his successor” James Madison.   Carey wrote “hundreds of thousands” had been deceived by these false accusations.   Carey reprinted three extracts from documents written by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Pinckney, minister in London, protesting the impressments in 1792.  More extracts dated before 1800 proved the United States had protested impressment long before Jefferson became president in 1801.

Carey printed an extract of a letter written by Rufus King, America’s diplomatic representative in London.  The letter explained his negotiations with British officials to stop impressments.  It was written in 1803.  Following those negotiations the British agreed to stop impressments on the high seas, but not in British waters.  According to Carey, King rejected the proposal.  Carey argued that King should have accepted it.  He found fault with King and the Federalists for criticizing President Madison on impressments, when they could have saved American sailors from impressment on the high seas.

At first the Federalists protested impressment.  By 1812, however,  they opposed war with Great Britain, even though America declared war because of impressment.  Carey had the extracts to prove it.  Carey noted that the Federalists sent resolutions to Congress in 1805 and 1806.  He included extracts from two memorials of New York merchants and one from New Haven.  He included an extract from William Cobbett, a former newspaper editor in Philadelphia.   Cobbett supported the British and was Carey’s former adversary.  Cobbett returned to Britain and wrote:  “But let not men be seized …upon the high seas (and sometimes at the mouth of her own rivers) where there is nobody to judge…and where the British officer…is at once ACCUSER, WITNESS, JUDGE, and CAPTOR.”[6]

Next, Carey played on the sympathies of his readers, including extracts of testimony by seamen who had been impressed.[7]

By 1813, Rufus King, now a senator from New York, had changed his mind.  Carey reprinted an extract of a letter from Jonathan Russell, another diplomatic representative in London to James Monroe, secretary of state, dated September 16, 1812.  The letter summarized a conversation with Lord Castlereagh, the British foreign secretary.    Russell wrote that Federalists in Congress blamed impressment on the “…misconduct of the American government.  This error probably originated with Mr. King.”[8]

Carey included an extract about difficulties of impressed seaman having to fight American vessels at sea.  An extract of a letter to the editor of the Boston Chronicle, without a date, noted Commodore Rodgers had 150 seamen aboard his vessel in Boston harbor.   One hundred twenty of his men had been impressed by the British “at different times.”  Carey included a letter from Commodore Rodgers to the Secretary of the Navy on January 14, 1813, reporting that about one eighth of crews aboard two British vessels were Americans.[9]

Again, Carey appealed to his readers’ emotions with an account of a British captain who allowed his American seaman to go below when his ship engaged an American vessel.  The captain was court martialed for the loss of his ship, because he did not have enough men to fight the Americans.[10]

Carey’s closing argument was that a committee reported to the Massachusetts legislature that in 1812, the beginning of the war, they claimed only eleven Massachusetts men were impressed, and the number of Americans was less than 300.  Carey’s contrasting extracts showed that Federalist newspapers and writers published lies about the continuing impressments.

He included an extract of a letter to James Monroe from James Madison when he was Secretary of State.  The letter clearly shows that Madison was opposed to the injustice of impressment.[11]

Carey thundered, “High-minded American merchants, possessed of immense fortunes…owing these entire manifold blessings to the labours, the skill, and the industry of our sailors—led by party spirit, regard with calm and stone-hearted apathy the miseries of impressment…”[12]

Next:   Did the Federalists Unjustly Criticize Madison Following the Failure of the Erskine Arrangement?  Faults of the Federalists continued.

Look for it Monday, April 22.

 


[1] Alan Taylor, The Civil War of 1812:  American Citizens, British Subjects, Irish Rebels, & Indian Allies, (New York:  Alfred A. Knopf, 2010) 103.

[2] Taylor, Civil War, 103.

[3] Taylor, Civil War, 104.

[4] Taylor, Civil War, 104.

[5] Taylor, Civil War, 106.

[6] Mathew Carey, The Olive Branch or Faults on Both Sides, Federal and Democratic (Philadelphia: M. Carey November 8, 1814) 142.

[7] Carey, Olive Branch,  143-6.

[8] Carey, Olive Branch, 147.

[9] Carey, Olive Branch, 148-9.

[10] Carey, Olive Branch, 150.

[11] Carey, Olive Branch, 152.

[12] Carey, Olive Branch, 153.

Posted in From The Desk, Secession | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Faults on Both Sides: Incorrect Allegations Concerning Impressment

Faults on Both Sides (continued) and Should the House Fund Legislation It Opposes?

Posted on April 6, 2013 by “Caius”

Faults of the Federalists (continued)

5.  The Embargo and the “Force Act” were Constitutional

Jefferson’s intent was to keep his embargo in effect until either the French repealed their decrees, or the British repealed their Orders in Council.  In 1809 Congress passed a “Force Act”  bolstering the Embargo.   Without a warrant,  federal agents confiscated goods suspected of being shipped to foreign ports.

New England and its merchants bore the brunt of the Jefferson’s embargo.   In 1807, the tonnage shipped by Massachusetts vessels alone was almost forty percent America’s total.  After the Embargo was passed, Massachusetts shippers lost a staggering $15 million in revenue.   In 1806, that was the total income of the Federal government.[1]  New Englanders looked to their state governments for redress.  Carey compared the “Force Act” with precedents signed by Washington and Adams.  In side-by-side columns Carey noted the act allowed the president to enact an embargo whenever public safety was at risk.  The president could also order officers to enforce an embargo.[2]

Throughout Massachusetts and Maine, citizens met for town meetings. They passed resolutions against Jefferson’s embargo asking their state governments for help.  Carey published extracts from several town meetings for readers to judge for themselves.  He wrote that the Embargo and “Force Act” were constitutional.

 

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

The Federalists prevailed.   Congressman Fisher Ames of Massachusetts enticed western Democratic-Republicans in the House to vote for Jay’s Treaty.  He linked Jay’s Treaty to Pinckney’s Treaty with issues important to westerners.  Pinckney’s Treaty promised them access to the Gulf of Mexico through the Mississippi.    It allowed merchants to warehouse their goods in New Orleans.

Congressman Ames had been ill during much of the debate.  With some effort, he rose to give a stirring oration to the House.  He urged representatives to vote for ratification of Jay’s Treaty, bringing many of those present to tears.

Playing on westerners’ fears about Native American attacks on the frontier Ames said:

“In the daytime your path through the woods is ambushed; the darkness of midnight will glitter with the blaze of your dwellings…the blood of your sons shall fatten your corn-field!…the war-whoop shall wake the sleep of the cradle!…I can fancy that I listen to the yells of savage vengeance and the shrieks of torture…even as slender and almost broken as my hold on life is, I may outlive the Government and Constitution of my country.” [3]

The Senate had failed to act on Pinckney’s Treaty.   Ames suggested if the House passed the Jay Treaty, the Senate would ratify Pinckney’s Treaty.  His ploy worked.  The House appropriated the funds for Jay’s Treaty, in a vote of 51-48 on April 30, 1796.[4]

If the House refused to fund Obamacare, how might the Senate entice some Republican representatives to vote for the funding siphoning off votes from the Republican majority?

 

 

 


[1] Gordon S. Wood, Empire of Liberty:  A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815, (New York:  Oxford University Press, 2009) 655.

[2] Mathew Carey, The Olive Branch or Faults on Both Sides, Federal and Democratic (Philadelphia: M. Carey November 8, 1814) 111.

 

[3] Fisher Ames quoted in  Stanley Elkins and Eric McKitrick, The Age of Federalism, (New York:  Oxford University Press, 1993) 448.

[4]Edward C. Carter II, “The Political Activities of Mathew Carey, Nationalist, 1760-1814,“ PhD Dissertation, Bryn Mawr College, 1962, 233.

Posted in From The Desk, House Appropriation, Secession | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Faults on Both Sides (continued) and Should the House Fund Legislation It Opposes?

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

Posted on March 31, 2013 by “Caius”

 

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]

Next:  Did those who voted for the Blount-Madison Resolution prevent ratification of the Jay Treaty?

Look for both posts Monday, April 8.

[1] Mathew Carey, The Olive Branch or Faults on Both Sides, Federal and Democratic (Philadelphia: M. Carey, November 8, 1814) 103.

[2] Carey, Olive Branch, 105

[3] Edward C. Carter II,  “The Political Activities of Mathew Carey, Nationalist, 1760-1814,” PhD Dissertation, Bryn Mawr College, 1962, 229.

[4] Carter, “The Political Activities of Mathew Carey,” 230-233.

[5] Carter, “The Political Activities of Mathew Carey,” 233, 229-230.

Posted in From The Desk, House Appropriation, Secession, States' rights | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Faults on Both Sides; Can the House Refuse to Fund Legislation It Opposes?

Faults of the Federalists; Can the House Refuse to Fund Obamacare?

Posted on March 24, 2013 by “Caius”

Mathew Carey published the Olive Branch on November 8, 1814.  The full title was The Olive Branch: or Faults on Both Sides, Federal and Democratic, A Serious Appeal on the Necessity of Mutual Forgiveness & Harmony, to Save our Common Country from Ruin.

He wrote:

“I believe the country to be in imminent danger of a convulsion, of the result whereof the human mind cannot calculate the consequences.  The nation is divided into two hostile parties, whose animosity towards each other is daily increased by inflammatory publications.  Each charges the other with the guilt of having produced the present alarming state of affairs.” [1]

When two people argue, he wrote, if they can be convinced that “the errors are mutual” then they can “open their ears to the voice of reason, and are willing to meet each other half way.”  He reasoned that the same was true for public affairs.[2]

To recap:  He devoted his second chapter of the Olive Branch to faults of the Democratic-Republicans. (See previous posts.)  He listed the faults of the Federalists in the following chapters.

Faults of the Federalists

1.     Promoting a Strong Central Government During the Constitutional Convention

Fearing anarchy, the Federalists sought to give the federal government as much power as possible.  The alternatives were the states or the people.  The Federalists were divided.  Some members of the convention were monarchists, while others were “genuine republicans” who embraced enlightenment ideals.  Both factions compromised.  Representatives from their party governed the United States for twelve years.  Those who opposed the administration were called “Jacobins.”  That label implied they opposed social order, property rights, religion and morality.  Carey wrote “[the Federalists] fenced round the constituted authorities” with the Alien and Sedition Acts.  While he admitted the Alien Law was not enforced, the Sedition Law was.  When Thomas Jefferson was elected, the Alien and Sedition laws were repealed.  Federalist newspapers attacked the administrations of Jefferson and Madison.   The Federalists opposed every measure of those administrations.  Enforcing America’s neutrality, while Britain and France were at war, Carey wrote, was difficult.   National unity was essential.[3]

2.     Reaction to British Attacks on America’s Ships

Beginning in 1805, merchants from seaports sent Congress many petitions.  They plead for measures to protect America’s merchant marine from British attacks.  In the Olive Branch Carey reprinted extracts of memorials from Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, New Haven, Newburyport, and Salem Massachusetts.  Merchants, he wrote, “urged, I might say goaded” the federal government into war, pledging their support.  The Senate responded with two strongly worded  resolutions.  New England Federalist Senators Pickering, Hillhouse, Bayard and Tracy voted for both resolutions.  Senator Pickering, however, changed his mind after the British passed a new policy, the Orders in Council of 1807.  They proclaimed that American vessels bound for French or European ports would be seized.  Pickering stated the British “had done our commerce no essential injury.” Carey considered the new policy an outrage that needed action.  He examined four responses: negotiation, non-intercourse, embargo, and war.  Jefferson sent William Pinckney to join James Monroe, who represented the United States at the Court of St. James.   Congress passed a non-intercourse act barring many British imports.  The act gave the British seven months to weigh its effects before implementation.  The law was suspended again from December 1806 until July 1807, giving the British even more time to reconsider.  Carey wrote “…never was greater forbearance shewn—never was forbearance so ill requited.”  Why?  On June 22, 1807, off the Chesapeake Bay a fifty-gun British warship, the HMS Leopard, asked to board the American frigate, USS Chesapeake.  The British were searching for deserters.  The American captain refused.   The British fired on the Chesapeake, killing three sailors inflicting wounds on sixteen more.  Then the British flagrantly boarded the Chesapeake.  They impressed four sailors, claiming they were British.  Actually, only one sailor was British.[4]   Americans were outraged.

Next: Faults on both sides, continued:  More Faults by the Federalists

 

Can the House of Representatives Refuse to Fund Obamacare?

Some bloggers are advancing the idea the House of Representatives can refuse to fund Obamacare.

This is what happened when Mathew Carey, among others, urged the House of Representatives to withhold funds to prevent ratification of the Jay Treaty:

In 1794, a year after the British went to war with the French, President Washington sent John Jay to London.  Jay negotiated a treaty to stop British depredation of American ships and impressment of its seamen.  The treaty was just as controversial as Obamacare.  Jay’s treaty did not stop attacks on American ships or impressments.  Throughout the United States, citizens criticized Jay for conceding too much to the British.

In 1796, Carey wrote an Address to the House of Representatives.    He urged the “political Barque steer the middle course” avoiding both despotism and anarchy.  He argued that America’s new government would end if the President and the Senate could overrule the House, which represented the voice of the people.  Carey drew on Alexander Dallas’ Features of Mr. Jay’s Treaty, which he published in 1795.    Carey wrote the President and Senate had power to make treaties, but the House regulated trade.  The Jay Treaty was commercial.  Funds were necessary for ratification.  The House, Carey argued, had the power to prevent ratification by refusing to appropriate funding.[5]

Issues raised by the Jay Treaty had no precedent.  Washington, the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans engaged in an important debate.   How should the government  handle treaties according to the Constitution?  The House, Carey argued, had constitutionally delegated responsibility to appropriate funds.  The House could accept or reject a treaty by withholding funds.

Next:  How President Washington and the House of Representatives Responded to Arguments to Prevent Funding for Ratification of the Jay Treaty.

Look for both posts Monday, April 1.

 

 

 

 


[1] Mathew Carey, The  Olive Branch or Faults on Both Sides (Philadelphia:  M. Carey November 8, 1814) 21.

[2]  Carey, Olive Branch, 21-2.

[3]  Carey, Olive Branch, 53-7.

[4] Carey, Olive Branch, 58-89;  Information on Leopard-Chesapeake Affair from Gordon S. Wood, Empire of Liberty:  A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815 (New York:  Oxford University Press, 2009)  647.

[5] Edward C. Carter, II, “The Political Activities of Mathew Carey, Nationalist, 1760-1814,” PhD Dissertation, Bryn Mawr College, 1962, 228-9.

Posted in From The Desk, House Appropriation, Secession | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Faults of the Federalists; Can the House Refuse to Fund Obamacare?

How Mathew Carey Found Fault with Madison’s Administration

Posted on March 16, 2013 by “Caius”

Faults on Both Sides Part I (continued)

 

7.  The Erskine Arrangement

The Federalists accused Jefferson and Madison of being under the influence of the French.  This accusation was disturbing.  The atrocities of the French Revolution were a recent memory.  Carey pointed out that when David Erskine, the British minister to the United States, negotiated with President Madison, they reached an agreement.  The Federalists praised Madison and wined and dined him in Washington. Unfortunately Erskine ignored instructions from his superiors.  The British recalled him, and rejected his agreement with Madison.  If the Democratic-Republicans were under the influence of the French, Carey argued, Madison’s cabinet would have objected to Erskine’s arrangement.[1]

8.  War with England

Carey thought the War of 1812 was justified. The British repealed their Orders in Council on June 16, 1812.  News of the repeal, which had to cross the Atlantic Ocean, did not reach Washington in time.  Congress declared war on Great Britain on June 18, 1812.   With that repeal, the British offered an armistice.  Carey argued that Madison should have accepted it.  The United States could have negotiated for better terms for  its grievances.  Jefferson and Madison had not prepared the country for war.  If it had been, the United States would have been able to make a decisive attack on the British.[2]

9.  Loans

Congress used loans to finance the war.  Carey argued that Congress, in a bid for popularity, deferred taxes necessary for sound public credit.  Loans, he wrote, were made at a loss, and public credit was damaged.[3]

10.  Appointment of Mr. Gallatin

Madison sent Albert Gallatin, the treasury secretary with exceptional ability, to London, as the minister from the United States.  Carey criticized Madison for making the appointment and Gallatin for accepting it.  He argued that Gallatin’s talents were desperately needed at the Department of the Treasury.[4]

11.  Negotiation at Gothenburg

Madison was given the choice of London or Gothenburg, Sweden, as the place for negotiation.  Carey argued the United States needed to end negotiations swiftly.  The British, in contrast, needed to drag  negotiations out.  Messages sent from London to Gothenburg, he wrote, would be delayed due to wind and weather.  “…the fate of hundreds, perhaps thousands of our most valuable citizens might depend upon the delay of a single day.”[5]

12.  Recent neglect of due preparation

A coalition of European powers captured Paris in March, 1814.  Napoleon wanted to recapture Paris, but his generals mutinied.  Napoleon abdicated and went into exile on the island of Elba. Carey wrote the first edition of the Olive Branch on November 8, 1814.  Napoleon did not return from exile until February 6, 1815.  The British defeated Napoleon, Carey argued, and their forces would be deployed to the United States.  Many Americans thought the war with Napoleon had ended, and the British would stop fighting in North America.  Our country was, Carey wrote, lulled into apathy.  On August 24, 1814, the British invaded Washington burning public buildings.  Carey thought that Madison’s administration should have prepared cities in the United States for invasion.  The government had the “best information” on the subject, yet the administration made no official communication to the people.[6]

Next:  Faults on both sides, Part II:  Errors of the Federalists

Look for it Monday, March 25.


[1] Mathew Carey, The Olive Branch, or Faults on Both Sides (Philadelphia:  Mathew Carey November 8, 1814) 36-8.

[2] Carey, Olive Branch, 39-43.

[3] Carey, Olive Branch, 43-4.

[4] Carey, Olive Branch, 44-5.

[5] Carey, Olive Branch, 45-6.

[6] Carey, Olive Branch, 45-6.

 

Posted in From The Desk | Comments Off on How Mathew Carey Found Fault with Madison’s Administration

How Mathew Carey Found Fault with Democratic-Republicans

Posted on March 10, 2013 by “Caius”

 

Mathew Carey published the Olive Branch on November 8, 1814.  The full title was The Olive Branch: or Faults on Both Sides, Federal and Democratic, A Serious Appeal on the Necessity of Mutual Forgiveness & Harmony, to Save our Common Country from Ruin.

Carey believed a small group of wealthy influential Federalists wanted New England to secede from the United States.  He noted about half the newspapers in New England opposed Madison’s administration.  In New York, Barent Gardenier, a Federalist and former representative, proposed sending President Madison into exile.  He suggested replacing Madison with a Federalist, saving the country from the need for an election.[1]

Carey wrote the Olive Branch appealing to moderates in New England, New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey.[2]

He wrote:

“I believe the country to be in imminent danger of a convulsion, of the result whereof the human mind cannot calculate the consequences.  The nation is divided into two hostile parties, whose animosity towards each other is daily increased by inflammatory publications.  Each charges the other with the guilt of having produced the present alarming state of affairs.”[3]

When two people argue, he wrote, if they can be convinced that “the errors are mutual” then they can “open their ears to the voice of reason, and are willing to meet each other half way.”  He reasoned the same was true for public affairs.[4]

He devoted his second chapter to the errors of the Democratic-Republican Party.[5]

1.      The Federal Constitution

He faulted future Democratic-Republicans at the Constitutional Convention for failing to give the federal government enough power.  Instead these delegates gave states more power to check tyranny by the federal government.  Carey charged this error to lack of knowledge on the history of republics. These framers, he added, had studied the works of authors writing about arrogant, presumptuous monarchies.

2.      Establishment of a Navy

The Democratic-Republicans also were “penny wise–pound foolish” for objecting to forming a small navy to protect America’s coasts.

3.      The Treaty with England

During Thomas Jefferson’s administration, James Monroe and William Pinckney negotiated with the British to renew the Jay Treaty.  Their mission was to stop impressment and secure America’s neutral trading rights.  They sent their treaty to Jefferson.  Without consulting the Senate, Jefferson rejected it.  He asked Monroe and Pinckney to renew negotiations.  Carey argued if Jefferson had followed the proper procedure, the Senate would probably have approved most of the treaty.  They would have deferred the objectionable passages to further discussion.  “Our party divisions,” he wrote “could never have been excited to such a height as to endanger the peace and security of the country.”

4.      Separation of the States

Rumblings of discontent and secession increased in New England’s Federalist newspapers during Jefferson’s administration.  Carey faulted Jefferson for not asking Congress to pass laws to prevent publishing articles promoting secession.   Carey argued Jefferson neglected his duty in not sending law officers to New England to censure the editors promoting civil war.  “Every society,” he wrote, “ought to possess within itself, and to exercise when the occasion calls for it, the fundamental principle of self-preservation.”

5.      The Embargo
While the Embargo was in effect, smuggling in New England was rampant.  Carey faulted Jefferson for not enforcing the Embargo in New England.  While honest businessmen suffered, dishonest merchants made fortunes.

6.      Alien and Sedition Laws and Eight Percent Loan 

Carey was a Democratic-Republican who opposed the Alien and Sedition Laws when they were in effect. He came close to being prosecuted as an alien, as an immigrant Irishman. He found fault with himself and his party for objecting to the laws.  After the crisis had passed, he claimed the laws were necessary for support of the government.  “…it requires great strength of mind to keep out of the vortex of factious contagion, when prevalent with those whose opinions are generally congenial with our own.  Of this strength of mind,” he confessed, “the writer [Mathew Carey] was destitute in common with a large portion of his fellow citizens.”   Referring to the Virginia Resolution, Carey noted the state’s legislature was “bitten by the mad dog of faction” and “seized with…the gag-law phobia.”

Thomas Cooper was a newspaper editor from Northumberland County, Pennsylvania. A provocative Democratic-Republican, he claimed  President Adams had damaged the nation’s credit.  Cooper reported that the nation was forced to borrow money at eight percent interest during peacetime.  Under provisions of the Sedition Act he was tried for libel, fined and imprisoned.  Carey observed that during the administrations of Jefferson and Madison the United States often paid even more than eight percent in interest.

Next: Faults on Both Sides: Part I (continued): How Carey Found Fault with Madison’s Administration

Look for it Monday, March 18

 


[1] Mathew Carey, The Olive Branch (Philadelphia: M. Carey, November 8, 1814) 5-9.

[2] Carey, Olive Branch, 10, 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.

[3] Carey, Olive Branch, 21-2.

[4] Carey, Olive Branch, 22.

[5] Carey, Olive Branch, Chapter 2, 22-53.

Posted in From The Desk, Secession, States' rights | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Mathew Carey Found Fault with Democratic-Republicans

Why the Olive Branch Was an Act of Courage for Carey; How the Nullification Crisis was Resolved

Posted on March 2, 2013 by “Caius”

Why Writing the Olive Branch was an Act of Courage for Mathew Carey

Carey published his book on secession, the Olive Branch, on November 6, 1814, shortly before the Hartford Convention.  It was an act of courage.  Carey was concerned his political activities would affect his business causing him to declare bankruptcy.

He wrote:

. “…The day before I published the [Olive Branch] I told Mrs Carey, that I had been writing, and was about to publish a Book.  She asked was it on politics—and when I answered in the affirmative, she turned pale and implored me not to publish it, as it would…excite a persecution which might ruin me at Bank.  She quoted the cases of some of our acquaintance who had been ruined by politics…My opinion…coincided with hers.  I dreaded ruin.  My engagements at that time were heavy—my resources lay chiefly to the South and west and were in a great measure cut off by the war.  I had notes to pay in Several Banks…if one or two of them had refused to renew those notes[,] I would probably have to pass the remainder of my days in a constant struggle to support my family.”[1]

Mathew Carey and his wife had good reason to fear attacks if he published the Olive Branch.

When John Adams was president the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798-1800) were in effect.  By that time, Mathew Carey had left the Federalists. He campaigned for Thomas Jefferson, who founded the Democratic-Republican Party.  Federalist newspapers attacked Carey and other immigrants from Ireland.  Editors accused Carey and his brother of being members of the United Irishmen, a group they alleged was intent on overthrowing the American government.  Carey also had difficulty getting loans from his bank.  In response, he published satirical poems.  Turning the accusations into humor, he garnered public support.  He successfully averted prosecution.

The Alien and Sedition Acts prompted James Madison and Thomas Jefferson to write the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, (1798, 1799) the first documents outlining the arguments for states’ rights used by New Englanders and South Carolinians.

How the Nullification Crisis was Resolved   

 John Quincy Adams’ Tariff of 1832 was acceptable to every Southern state except South Carolina.  John C. Calhoun and his allies organized the Nullification Convention on November 24, 1832. The convention declared the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 invalid in South Carolina beginning February 1, 1833.  If the federal government forced payment of tariff duties, South Carolina would secede.  Senator Robert Hayne returned to South Carolina to become governor.   Calhoun resigned as Andrew Jackson’s vice president.  He replaced Hayne as a senator from South Carolina.[2]

Not all South Carolinians agreed with the declarations of the Nullification Convention.  Those who favored the Union signed up to support President Jackson, and oppose their state’s militia.[3]

President Jackson considered the convention a “violation of duty” and “subversive of the Constitution.”  First he ordered more troops to Fort Moultrie and Castle Pinckney, both in Charleston’s harbor.  In January 1833, he worked with Congress drafting a bill to transfer tariff collection points to ships and forts in Charleston’s harbor.  South Carolinians called it the “Force Bill.”[4]

In South Carolina and elsewhere, citizens were alarmed civil war was imminent.[5]

Jackson worried that nullifiers would clash with his Union supporters in South Carolina.  He thundered, “…if one drop of blood be shed there in defiance of the laws of the United States, I will hang the first man of them I can get my hands on to the first tree I can find.”  Robert Hayne asked Senator Thomas Hart Benton if Jackson would act on that threat.   Benton replied “…when Jackson begins to talk about hanging, they can begin to look out for ropes!”[6]

Jackson used a two-pronged approach to resolve the Nullification Crisis.  He stood firm with the “Force Bill.”  He offered conciliation, lowering the tariffs with the “Verplanck Bill.”  The House Ways and Means committee sent the “Verplanck Bill” to the House in early January.  The House piled on amendments. [7]

In Washington, Calhoun predicted to his followers in South Carolina the “Force Bill” would be enacted.  The Senate, he wrote, would defeat the amendment-laden “Verplanck Bill.”[8]

Late in January, South Carolina prepared for war.  As the February 1 deadline loomed, Calhoun wrote to his supporters “we must not think of secession but in the last extremity.”[9]

The “Verplanck Bill” may have been defeated, but Andrew Jackson and Congress realized that South Carolina’s concerns needed to be addressed.  In early February, Henry Clay approached Calhoun about drafting a new compromise tariff.  Calhoun agreed. Clay and Calhoun introduced the Tariff of 1833.  The “Force Bill” and the Tariff of 1833 passed together on March 1.[10]

Jackson’s use of force and conciliation worked.  Henry Clay received credit for new tariff.  He was praised as the “Great Compromiser.”  The “Force Bill” was enacted, despite the objections of slaveholders, including Henry Clay.[11]

In South Carolina’s capital, Columbia, nullifiers met for a convention on March 11.  Claiming victory, they retracted nullification of the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832.  Jackson’s “Force Act” no longer mattered.  Displaying cheek, they nullified it anyway.[12]

Next:  Faults on Both Sides, Part I:  How Mathew Carey Found Fault with the Democratic-Republicans

Look for it Monday, March 11


[1] Mathew Carey, Miscellanies II, private collection,  161.

[2] Daniel Walker Howe, What Hath God Wrought:  The Transformation of America, 1815-1848, (New York:  Oxford University Press, 2007) 404.

[3] Howe, What Hath God Wrought, 406.

[4] Howe, What Hath God Wrought, 405-6.

[5] Howe, What Hath God Wrought, 406.

[6] Howe, What Hath God Wrought, 406.

[7] William W. Freehling, Prelude to Civil War:  The Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 1816-1836, (New York:  Oxford University Press, 1966) 290.

[8] Freehling, Prelude to Civil War, 288, 290.

[9] Freehling, Prelude to Civil War, 291.

[10] Freehling, Prelude to Civil War, 292.

[11] Freehling, Prelude to Civil War, 292-3.

[12] Howe, What Hath God Wrought, 408.

Posted in From The Desk, Nullification, Secession, States' rights | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why the Olive Branch Was an Act of Courage for Carey; How the Nullification Crisis was Resolved

How New England Responded When the British Invaded Washington; What is the American Colonization Society?

Posted on February 24, 2013 by “Caius”

How New England Responded When the British Invaded Washington

In August 1814, British troops invaded Washington and burned the White House.  Inhabitants of Maine, under occupation, swore loyalty to Britain.  Massachusetts pulled its troops out of service to the United States.

Distraught, Carey tore up a manuscript for the Olive Branch he had started on September 8.  Following American victories at Lake Champlain, Plattsburg and Baltimore, Carey was encouraged to begin the manuscript again.  Discouraged at another juncture, he thought about stopping the project a second time.[1]

As he was writing the Olive Branch the Federalists organized a convention in Hartford, Connecticut on October 5, 1814.    The purpose of the convention was to change the United States Constitution.  Timothy Pickering and John Lowell led the radical Federalists.   They threatened to revise the Constitution to protect New England’s interests.  They hoped to pressure other states into agreement.  If those states declined, the radicals were ready to negotiate peace with Great Britain.  New England would be an independent confederacy that had seceded from the United States.  The moderates, led by Harrison Gray Otis, wanted to use the convention simply to gain concessions for New England from the Federal government.

What is the American Colonization Society and Why is it Important in the Discussion of Nullification?

The American Colonization Society was formed to send freed slaves back to Africa.

The idea came from Paul Cuffee, a Quaker sea captain, the son of a Wampanoag Indian mother and a West African father.  He attracted white supporters, and hoped to gain support for his plan in Congress.  The American Colonization Society was founded in 1816, by Cuffee’s supporters from Virginia and New Jersey.  Charles Fenton Mercer, a Federalist from Virginia, attracted Republicans John Randolph of Roanoke and John Taylor of Caroline.  He suggested that returning freed slaves to Africa would help prevent uprisings.  Reverend Robert Finley from New Jersey hoped that Cuffee’s plan would help masters gradually emancipate their slaves.[2]

Henry Clay, a slave owner from Kentucky, was an enthusiastic leader of the Society.  Clay was a moderate, who sought the middle ground between the New England abolitionists, and Southerners’ reaction to abolition, the pro-slavery movement.  He thought that freed slaves would never achieve true equality in America, and returning to Africa would allow them to realize it.

The Society was both a public and private effort.  With private donations and funds from the government, the Society bought land on the western coast of Africa to found Liberia.  By 1843, more than four thousand freed slaves had returned to the colony.  Ten thousand more freed slaves would arrive before the outbreak of the Civil War.  Liberia declared independence in 1847.

The American Colonization Society, the moderates’ approach to helping freed slaves achieve equality, is important in the discussion of nullification.  While Henry Clay and Mathew Carey were promoting the American System, Robert Turnbull published a pamphlet called The Crisis in South Carolina.  Turnbull linked protective tariffs and internal improvements to the emancipation of slaves.  He suggested the American Colonization Society, which Henry Clay and Mathew Carey supported, was the first step in forcing the South to emancipate all slaves.  His pamphlet influenced John Calhoun and other radicals.  They reasoned if nullification worked to eliminate a tariff it would work if the federal government forced the South to emancipate its slaves.

Next:  Why Writing the Olive Branch was a Personal Act of Courage for Mathew Carey

How the Nullification Crisis was Resolved

Look for it Monday, March 4


[1]Edward C. Carter II, “Mathew Carey and ‘The Olive Branch,’ 1814-1818,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 89, No. 4 (October, 1965) 405.

[2] Daniel Walker Howe, What Hath God Wrought:  The Transformation of America, 1815-1848 (New York:  Oxford University Press, 2007) 260-262, 264.

Posted in From The Desk, Nullification, Secession, States' rights | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How New England Responded When the British Invaded Washington; What is the American Colonization Society?

Secession During the War of 1812; Nullification Threats in 1832

Posted on February 17, 2013 by “Caius”

How Mathew Carey Suggested Madison Deal with Secessionists During the War of 1812

As Madison passively ignored him, and New Englanders became bolder, Carey’s protests became more urgent.   He continued to write to Madison, even suggesting that Congress pass a law convicting secessionists for high crimes against the government.[1]

Carey took his arguments out of private letters to Madison and made them public. On February 14 1814, he published Prospects on the Banks of the Rubicon, using the pseudonym “Cassandra.”  He explained the threats of secession from New England, and repeated his suggestions for a Washington Union Society and bringing Federalists into the government.  He found fault with both the Essex Junto and the British.   His publication had little effect.  The public, like Madison, ignored him.[2]

How John Quincy Adams Responded to South Carolina’s Nullification Threats in 1832

John Quincy Adams supported proposals by Henry Clay and Mathew Carey for  internal improvements and protective tariffs.  Congress passed the Tariff of 1828 while he was president.  John C.Calhoun, who opposed of the tariff, was vice president.  In response to the tariff that he and other South Carolinians despised Calhoun crafted arguments for its nullification in the South Carolina Exposition in 1828.

In 1831, John Quincy Adams returned to the House of Representatives, becoming chairman of the Committee on Manufactures.  Adams drafted a new bill for a tariff acceptable to Southerners.  He addressed the needs of plantation owners in South Carolina.  Their depleted soil reduced the profitability of their cotton, yet they had to clothe their slaves.  The Tariff of 1828 made it difficult to buy reasonably priced fabric.  He slashed duty on inexpensive woolens from 45 percent to 5 percent. The tariff continued to protect iron and cotton textiles.  The tariff reduced duties on products the United States did not manufacture. [3]

The Tariff of 1832 was acceptable to most Northerners and Southerners, except in South Carolina.  South Carolina had the highest percentage of slaves of any Southern state.  Robert J. Turnbull, writing under the pseudonym of Brutus, wrote pamphlet entitled The Crisis, in 1827.  He linked protective tariffs and internal improvement proposals to abolition of slavery.  Turnbull claimed the American Colonization Society planned to abolish slavery.[4]  Henry Clay relied on Mathew Carey’s writings to promote internal improvements and protective tariffs.   Clay was a founder of the American Colonization Society.  Mathew Carey was secretary of the organization’s Philadelphia chapter.[5]

Calhoun realized that if threats of nullification resulted in John Quincy Adams’ revised tariff, those threats could be used to protect slavery. [6] Originally Calhoun applied nullification to an economic issue, the Tariff of 1828.   Calhoun and his radical allies then applied it to a larger social and moral issue, slavery.  The Tariff of 1832 came under attack in South Carolina.

Next:  What the New England Federalists did when the British Invaded Washington and Burned the White House;  What was the American Colonization Society, and Why was it Important?

 

[1] Edward C. Carter II, “Mathew Carey and the ‘Olive Branch’ 1814-1818,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 89. No. 4 (Oct. 1965)  402.

[2] Carter, “Olive Branch,” 404.

[3]Daniel Walker Howe, What Hath God Wrought:  The Transformation of America, 1815-1848 (New York:  Oxford University Press, 2007) 400-2.

[4] Howe, What Hath God Wrought,402-3.

[5] The African Repository and Colonial Journal, Vol. IX, (Washington:  James C. Dunn, 1834) 315.

[6] Howe, What Hath God Wrought, 402-3.

Posted in Nullification, Secession, States' rights | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Secession During the War of 1812; Nullification Threats in 1832