and that war should be avoided as long as possible.” The Republicans urged in defense of their position, that it was the only way in which the United States could obtain redress from England and Prance. Both countries had injured the United States in the same way, and to obtain redress by warlike measures would involve the United States in a war with both. This, it was claimed, was something for which the country was not prepared. When the promised effects of the embargo were not produced, the people began to murmur. The Federals urged that the government, by stopping commerce, laid “violent hands on the commercial existence of hundreds of thousands of its citizens;” that the embargo was unconstitutional, because it was not limited to a definite time; that it helped England against France, and was so intended; and that it ruined a large portion of the productive industry of the country.
When it became an established fact that all interests had suffered from the embargo, the tide of public opinion turned against it, and the law met with open resistance on the eastern coast and the Canadian border. In January, 1809, the inefficiency of the embargo having been ascertained, the administration avowed a change of front, and resolved to resume and defend the navigation of the high seas against any nation having in force decrees violating the neutral rights of the United States. Congress provided for the repeal of the law on the 18th of March.
The discussions over the embargo added strength to the Federalists, but, lacking leaders, they were unable to profit by their advantage. At first they advocated war with England, instead of the embargo, but when the dominant party changed front and determined upon a repeal of the act and a defense of commerce, they opposed, unconditionally, a war with England.
The Non-intercourse act was a law prohibiting commercial intercourse with England and France, until the “orders in council” and the “decrees” should be repealed.
Election of 1808.—President Jefferson, in imitation of the example of Washington, declined a re-election. The Republicans were divided as to who should be his successor. One caucus nominated James Madison and another James Monroe. Charles C. Pinckney and Rufus King were the Federal candidates. An earnest canvass followed, in which the Republicans feared their own dissensions more than Federal opposition. Seventeen congressmen formally protested against the election of Madison, and proclaimed his unfitness for the presidency. In some places George Clinton was suggested as the proper man for the position. The embargo, during the canvass, operated in the interests of the Federalists; but the dominant party was too strong to be overthrown. Madison was elected by a large majority.
Republicanism tested.—Jefferson’s administration gave him an opportunity to exemplify the substantive ideas embodied in the platform on which he was elected, and asserted in his inaugural address. He tested Republicanism, and demonstrated that according to its principles the government could be administered with fairness. His course was consistent; his duties were faithfully performed; his administration was promotive of the varied interests of the country; and its influence upon the sentiments and aspirations of the people was benign.
Madison’s Administration.
Madison’s policy, both in regard to foreign and general affairs was the same as that of Jefferson. His inaugural address contained an enunciation of principles which repeated, in substance, those of his predecessor, and added nothing save what was demanded by the exigencies of the times.
Diplomacy.—Mr. Madison inherited from the previous administration the pending controversy with England. He desired to avert war as long as possible by the use of diplomacy. England and France were still at a dead-lock and disregarding neighboring neutrals. The former adhered to her “orders in council,” and insisted that “a man once a subject was always a subject;” the latter had authorized the seizure and confiscation of American vessels which should enter the ports of France. Mr. Erskine, the British minister, in April, 1809, concluded a treaty with the government, which engaged that the “orders in council” should be withdrawn; but the British ministry refused to sanction his action. When the Non-intercourse act expired, in May, 1810, Mr. Madison “caused proposals to be made to both belligerents, that if either would revoke its hostile edict, this law should only be revived and enforced against the other nation.” France accepted the proposal and received the benefits of its execution; England did not.
Attempt to recharter the National Bank.—As the National Bank would cease to exist on the 4th of March 1811, unsuccessful attempts that year were made in Congress to pass a bill rechartering the institution. The measure was advocated by the Federalists; the Republicans as a rule opposed the bill, although some of them gave it their support.
Third embargo.—In April, 1812, the President recommended an embargo for sixty days; Congress passed a bill to that effect, but extended the time to ninety days.
Election of 1812.—The Republican party was divided on the question of a war with England. One portion favoring the war, and headed by Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun, was called the war party; the other portion questioned the propriety of a declaration of war, and received the sympathy of the President. The war party determined that Mr. Madison should identify himself with them, and refused to give him their support for a second term unless he would comply with their wishes. The desired effect having been produced upon the President, he was nominated for re-election by the Republicans, at a congressional caucus held at Washington on the 8th of May. The Federalists, having no ticket of their own, supported Clinton and Ingersoll. In the south and west, Mr. Madison met with but little opposition; in New England the contest was exciting; and in New York, where the Clintonians and Federalists coalesced, there were “accusations of infidelity to the Republican cause, which inflicted political wounds that were never healed.”
Clintonians.—Certain Republicans in northern and southern states, not wishing that Virginia should monopolize the administration of the country, objecting to the caucus system
