CHAPTER VIII

THE BRITISH AGGRESSIONS

BEFORE considering the aggressions of the British government upon our shipping during the period between the Revolution and the War of 1812, it seems still more necessary than it was in the case of the French to try to get the point of view of the aggressor. The men who governed England were placed in power not only to guard but to promote English interests against those of all other nations. Patriotism and natural ambition inspired them to do this as fully as possible. The welfare of the nation being in their charge, it was their duty to consider first of all entire safety from invasion, as everybody believed then, and believes now, that safety depended upon the supremacy of the nation upon the high seas. To maintain that supremacy every Briton felt obliged to make every needed sacrifice. Small wonder, then, that in maintaining that supremacy the rulers of England should have felt obliged to hamper all possible rivals for that supremacy. The state of public mind at the end of a century wherein England had been at war four years for every three of peace demanded that the British supremacy at sea be maintained at _any_ cost; and the morality of the world has not even yet reached a condition where an English patriot can feel sentiments differing greatly from those of the end of the eighteenth century.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, civilized nations acknowledge certain rules of national conduct called international law, but at the end of the eighteenth nothing of the kind had any real weight in regulating international affairs. Men quoted Vattel in their correspondence, but the one recognized rule contained three words only, "Might makes right." Practical, not altruistic, considerations controlled all negotiations, _and no nation had, or could expect to maintain, any "right" which it was unwilling to support by force_. It was the duty of neutral powers to build ships of the line, or meekly suffer the consequences. The facts of history support no statement more fully than this, that American shipping suffered from spoliations, between 1783 and 1812, solely because they begged, instead of fighting, for that freedom of the sea which they claimed as a natural right.

As an introduction to the story of the British aggressions, here are a few extracts from letters written by one Phineas Bond, a native-born American who served England as consul at Philadelphia, beginning in 1787. The letters were written either to the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, or to one of the under secretaries. (See _An. Rep. Am. Hist. Asso._, 1894.)

On February 21, 1787, in referring to an act of Parliament relating to the registry of English ships, Bond said that "if properly pointed it must inevitably cramp the remnant of commerce now enjoyed by this country." He is confident that the "alarm and perplexity" which the act occasioned in America, prove that it will be beneficial to British shipping.

On May 17 Bond said that the American ships from China were bringing home more goods than the country could use, and that the surplus was shipped to Europe, where it would undersell the goods of the British East India Company. By the use of bribes (he speaks plainly of bribing officials), he obtained copies of the manifests of all American ships from China, and forwarded them to England. Then on July 2 he wrote:--

"This country is so restricted by the regulations of trade of other nations ... and so weak are the resources of the merchants _here_, that if an early check or restraint can be thrown in their way, either by thwarting their credit or by withholding the articles suitable to their commerce, they would never rally; and then, my Lord, they would be confined to their coasting trade and to illicit communication with the Spaniards: These come in a secret manner into the ports of America and bring specie to a large amount ... the amount of specie is enormous ... at least 500,000 dollars were brought into this port last year." To take away this trade with the Spaniards Bond advised the "establishing of a free port in the Bahamas ... from which the Spaniards could draw the supplies they want."

In a letter dated September 29 Bond took a look ahead: "The rumor of war has inspired the Americans with new spirits: they anticipate the benefits of a free trade, and already calculate upon the profits of being the carriers to all the belligerent powers."

In a letter dated November 20 Bond tells "of two persons, natives of England who with great resolution and no small personal risque purchased here and reshipped to Liverpool three machines for spinning cotton and a machine for carding cotton for spinning." The machines had been brought from Liverpool "clandestinely ... packed in queensware crates." They were bought by the "natives of England" and reshipped to Liverpool in order to hinder the establishment of a cotton-spinning industry in the United States.

Bond said he did not "apprehend" that any such factories would be "speedily brought to a state of Rivalship with those of Gt. Britain," but it was "fit to guard against an evil which tho' at present in its infancy," might grow in time.

In several letters Bond urged that restrictions be placed upon passenger-carrying ships leaving England for the United States, "Under color of a humane provision for the comfort of" emigrants, in order to stop or at least "discourage" all emigrants, and especially mechanics, likely to be of value in developing the industries of the United States.

Of especial interest is the warning which Bond sent when he learned that the British government considered the propriety of admitting American vessels of limited size, (seventy tons was offered later), into the trade of the British West Indies. He said:--

"Any indulgence of this sort would certainly divert the trade out of its present channel--the people of New England are an enterprising people, the number of their ports and the locality of their situation favor the increase of seamen. They navigate their vessels frugally and their outfits are infinitely less expensive than the outfits of Brit. vessels. When once admitted to trade with the W. India Islands, ship building which has lain dormant, almost, and which was formerly a source of great profit to this country, would instantly be revived--_America would soon monopolize_ the advantages of carrying; limited as to size the numbers of her vessels would be increased, and by increasing the numbers would supply the means of conveying all the produce of America which is consumed in our islands, and that, too, at a much cheaper rate than any other nation could afford. But the enterprising spirit of the people of New England would, as soon as they found the channels of profit open, be exerted to the raising a maritime force which in case of future war might operate very detrimentally to the interests of England."

That Bond was encouraged in this kind of work appears from the fact that he was promoted later. There was no detail of American business too small to escape the careful attention of the British government in its efforts to throw what Bond called an "early check or restraint" upon all American progress, and especially upon the prosperity of American shipping.

A comparison, briefly made, of the laws and regulations of England and the United States follows:--

The British prohibited American vessels from entering the ports of their West India Islands, Canada, and other American possessions, and their East India spice market. We admitted British vessels into all our ports on payment of a tonnage tax of fifty cents per ton (our ships paid six cents per ton), and goods brought in British ships paid a revenue duty of 10 per cent more than goods in ours.

In the treaty made in 1794 the British offered to let our vessels of no more than seventy tons enter their West Indies on condition that we would admit British ships of any size on payment of the same tax and duty as our own.

The British imposed double lighthouse taxes on American vessels bound to any port in England except London. We imposed no extra lighthouse dues.

British merchants were prohibited from using American-built vessels in a number of trades. We allowed our merchants to use British-built vessels in any trade on payment of the extra dues mentioned above.

The British prohibited the importation of goods by American vessels from every country except the United States. We permitted the British vessels to bring us goods from all countries.

The British prohibited the importation of some of our agricultural products during specified periods of time, and of some at all times. We admitted the importation of all British agricultural products at all times.

An American citizen was not allowed to import some goods into some ports of the British domain, even in British ships. In other ports an extra tax was laid on the American. We permitted the British citizen to import all goods into all our ports, and we laid no extra tax upon him.

The British prohibited the consumption of certain American articles the importation of which they permitted. We did not prohibit the consumption of any British article.

The British prohibited the importation of American goods from all countries except the United States. We permitted the importation of British goods from all countries.

Consul Bond, in a letter (April 19, 1789), to Lord Carmarthen, berated Mr. Madison because "he by no means adverts to that important consideration, that so great indulgence has been granted by Gt. Britain to the United States."

Omitting for want of space any account of many previous attacks upon American shipping, it may be said that the first made in connection with the war upon the French Republic was the order to British warships on June 8, 1793, to "detain all vessels laden wholly or in part with corn, flour or meal" bound to any French port. It was provided that each ship so captured should be restored, but the cargo was to be confiscated for the account of the British government, which was to pay for it the invoice cost with 10 per cent added. This order was issued ostensibly to starve the French republicans into submission to the old monarchy, but it was well known that no such result could follow because France had never depended upon the United States for any part of its bread worth mention. Thus, in 1792, when we exported 546,913 bushels of wheat to Great Britain and her possessions, France took only 54 bushels. The order, therefore, had some other object in view, and the brief story of the ship _Neptune_, Captain Jeffries, is instructive at this point. When the _Neptune_ was captured under this order, she was restored as soon as convenient to do so, and an order was issued for the payment of the invoice price of her cargo with 10 per cent added. The addition of 10 per cent for profit seemed at first glance to be an effort to act with some degree of fairness, but as a matter of fact the owners were deliberately robbed; the market price of wheat in England, at that time, was very much higher than the invoice price with 10 per cent added, and Captain Jeffries pleaded for permission, not to go on to the port for which he had been sailing (where the price was still higher), but for permission to sell the grain to merchants there in London, who were anxious to give the market price; but the government insisted on taking it at the mere advance of 10 per cent.

We may suppose that Captain Jeffries's failure to be satisfied with a profit of 10 per cent was considered a plain illustration of American avarice.

On November 6, 1793, British cruisers were ordered to capture all neutral ships laden with the produce of the French West Indies. American ships were carrying immense quantities of those goods, and all the larger because they were excluded from the British West Indies. To make certain of a clean sweep of these American ships, the order in council was kept secret for several weeks in order to give the British cruisers time enough to get on the ground and take everything unawares. (H. Adams, II, 322.)

On January 8, 1794, this order was changed so as to permit American ships to carry the French colonial produce to American ports, but the direct trade to Europe was still forbidden. In the meantime more than 200 American vessels had been captured and confiscated under the original order.

While American ships were forbidden to carry French colonial goods from the colonies direct to France, they were, as said, yet allowed to carry the produce to the United States and then reëxport it to Europe, provided it was entered in the American port, landed, and all duties, etc., paid before the voyage was continued. In the case of the _Polly_, decided April 29, 1800, Sir William Scott (Lord Stowell), confirmed this right of American ships, and the American minister "succeeded in obtaining from Pitt an express acceptance of this rule." One may note that this concession was obtained immediately after our warships had been sent to protect our merchantmen from the aggressions of the French; the guns of the _Constellation_ had been heard in London, so to speak.

When, on April 29, 1803, England declared war upon Napoleon, however, a new administration had been inaugurated in the United States, and all Europe knew that no use would be made of such American war-ships as remained in commission. Accordingly, as a first measure to hamper the American ships in their effort to become carriers for the beleaguered French, two British frigates were sent to Sandy Hook to detain and search all ships for property belonging to the French. American waters were occupied for the purpose of hampering American trade. In the course of the blockade thus established, a British gunner, just for a joke, fired a shot at a coaster, aiming so as to frighten the crew. The man at the coaster's helm was killed.

This invasion of American waters was a fair notice of the British determination to compel the United States to abide by all English laws and orders in council made for the protection of British shipping. By refusing to declare war, the American administration justified the aggressors.

Then the British government, still further to promote British trade and shipping, adopted Phineas Bond's advice, and established free ports in the West Indies, to which small unarmed traders from the colonies of the enemy were invited to come and buy British goods. These free ports were supplied by British ships under convoy.

In the meantime preparations were made to deprive the Americans of the indirect trade from the French colonies by way of the United States to Europe. On July 23, 1805, Sir William Scott, reversing his decision in the case of the _Polly_, decided that a ship called the _Essex_ was a good prize, although in a voyage from Bordeaux she had called at Salem, discharged cargo, made repairs, and reloaded before heading away for a West India port.

The all-influential British navy had joined in with the British ship-owner to demand that the American ships should be excluded from all trade between the colonies of the enemy and Europe. The ship-owners demanded it because the American ship, in spite of the great expense of the indirect voyage, was yet able to take the trade from the British, even though they were supported by free ports and other aids. The demand made by or for the British naval officers was unique. When voiced by one James Stephens (_War in Disguise; or the Frauds of the Neutral Flags_), he pictured a British admiral grown old and full of honors in the service, who, in spite of his honors, had been unable "to wrest [from the enemy] the means of comfortably sustaining those honors." As long as American ships were allowed to engage in the indirect trade, the naval officer would have to "look in vain for any subject of _safe_ and uncontested capture." If American ships were excluded, they would still take chances, and they would then be captured without danger and condemned without contest.

Mere mention need be made of the British practice of taking American sailors from American ships and compelling them to serve in British war-ships. Many American merchantmen were left short-handed upon the high seas, and there is no doubt that some of them were, for this reason, lost with all hands. The practice was maintained as one method of depressing our navigation, but the subject seems to belong to our naval histories.

Brief space will serve for a consideration of the various orders in council and paper blockades issued and laid in 1806 and 1807. In May, 1806, the British declared that the European coast "from the river Elbe to the port of Brest inclusive ... must be considered as blockaded." No blockading fleet was maintained. In reply to this Napoleon issued his Berlin decree declaring the British islands "in a state of blockade," and that "all commerce and correspondence with the British Islands is prohibited."

The French navy was unable to go to sea; Napoleon had only a few privateers with which to enforce his decree, but the British used it as an excuse for the order in council of January 7, 1807, by which no vessel was "permitted to trade from one port to another both which ports shall" be so far under the control of the enemy "_that British vessels may not trade freely thereat_."

"If we may not no one else shall." The chief influence of this order upon American vessels was to interdict their trade as coasters in Europe, and to prevent their seeking a cargo in another port when they failed to find one in the first port entered.

The order in council of November 11, 1807, was issued partly because, as it stated, that the one of January 7 had failed to induce Napoleon to withdraw his Berlin decree, and because no neutral power had declared war upon him because of that failure. The chief reason for issuing it however (and this was also plainly declared), was "for _supporting that maritime power_ which the exertions and valor of his [the British king's] people have, under the blessing of Providence enabled him to establish and maintain." To this end all the ports from which "the British flag is excluded" were declared in a state of blockade. "Maritime power" meant "merchant marine."

The principal ports of the world to which American vessels had been accustomed to trade, having thus been closed with a paper blockade, they were all reopened again on condition that the trade to them be carried on by way of England. On the 25th of the month it was further provided that the ships thus trading by way of England were to land their cargoes in the English port visited.

This placed the ships of the United States in the condition endured by American vessels in colonial days when goods purchased in Europe had to be carried to an English port and "laid on shore" before they were taken to America. Some writers have supposed that this was done as a step toward returning the United States once more to the position of colonies. The fact is that the rulers of England had found that they could not exclude American ships altogether from the sea, and they had determined, therefore, to make them serve British interests as far as possible--first by carrying _British goods_ to the ports from which British ships were excluded, and second, by making them pay a tribute by landing their cargoes in English ports. Practically the United States was thus made a vassal of England.

In reply to this order Napoleon decreed that any ship that should in any way submit to or take advantage of it should be good prize.

The dates of the several orders in council and decrees are of some interest because these show that the British began the series by the paper blockade from the Elbe to Brest. But the chief interest is in the fact that the orders were all issued for the benefit of British _trade_. The talk found in various histories about "retaliation" and England's "death struggle with tyranny" was all sham. Said Spencer Percival, in a frank speech in Parliament, (March 3, 1812):--

"The object of the orders in council was not to destroy the trade of the continent but to force the continent to trade with us."

"I am of the opinion," said Lord Hawkesbury, "that _some decisive measure_ in support of our own commerce ... is become indispensable, not merely as a measure of commercial policy, _but in order to put the contest in which we are engaged upon its true grounds_." (Quoted by H. Adams, IV, 90.)

But while England strove by every means to preserve her trade and shipping at the expense of her American rival, and Napoleon, with motives no higher than those of a highwayman, confiscated American ships and cargoes to the value of $10,000,000, the American merchant marine prospered.

On December 31, 1789, ships of an aggregate capacity of 123,893 tons were registered under the American flag for foreign trade. In 1792 the tonnage registered was 411,438. In 1793, the first year of extensive spoliations, the tonnage was reduced to 367,734, but thereafter, in spite of the fact that Americans were obliged to fight their way through swarming enemies, our shipping grew until in 1800 we made boast of the possession of 667,107 tons in the foreign trade. Further than that, British shipping aggregating 115,000 tons entered and cleared out of American ports in 1790, but in 1800, only 40,000 tons. From 1790 to 1792 the American tonnage that entered and cleared averaged 54,000 tons a year; in 1800 the tonnage that entered and cleared was 236,000.

Even when the stupidity of the administration added the embargo to all other ills afflicting our shipping, its vigor was not destroyed. The registered tonnage fell from 840,163 in 1807 to 765,252 in 1808 under the embargo, but after the embargo was removed (March 1, 1809), the figures grew within the year to 906,855, and in 1810 we had 981,019 tons registered for foreign trade. Moreover, 127,000 tons of new ships were built during that year, and in that year, too, our ships carried 91.5 per cent of all American imports and exports.

The reasons for this prosperity are readily found. American enterprise was, in those days, irrepressible. When Salem merchants heard that dried sea slugs (_bêche de mer_) were highly prized as food in China, and that the waters of the Fiji Islands swarmed with the worms, they despatched the bark _Active_ (July 26, 1811), under Captain William P. Richardson, to collect and dry enough of the slugs to freight the ship for the Canton market. A more remarkable illustration of the enterprise of the day is found, perhaps, in the fact that when a colony of New Englanders settled at Marietta, Ohio (Captain Abraham Whipple was of the number), they began to build ships there for the deep-water trade. The brig _St. Clair_, of 110 tons, was launched in 1800. In 1801 a ship of 230 tons and a brig of 126 were built. Three ships of 300 or more tons were completed in 1806 besides a number of smaller ones. A similar record was made the next year. The largest ship built there was the _Francis_, of 350 tons, built by Whitney for B. J. Gilman. She was of the largest size of her day. In all, seven ships, eleven brigs, six schooners, and two gunboats (for the navy), were built at Marietta before the War of 1812. Imagine a full-rigged ship, with all sails set, plunging down over the Falls of the Ohio!

To enterprise was added unequalled opportunity. The wars of Europe drove the ships of European nations from the sea, save only as voyages were made under convoy. The Americans took the risks because the pay was adequate. Captain George Coggeshall, in _American Privateers_ (p. 200), says he received $45 per ton freight from Bordeaux to Boston. In the voyage of Captain Elias Hasket Derby, described in the last chapter, his cargo carried to Gibraltar cost him $43,275. The net profit made upon it was more than $100,000.

How the perils of trade affected the quality of American ships, especially their speed, must have mention. Hundreds of our vessels were captured by the enemy, but many more were chased in vain. It was at this time that the Baltimore clippers gained world-wide fame. The narrow and shoal waters of the Chesapeake had compelled Baltimore designers to make shallow models that could beat to windward swiftly in all winds. The peculiarity of these vessels was the great breadth of beam and a consequent ability to carry large areas of sail. No models equalled those of Baltimore, and when speed was the price of safety at sea, the Baltimore model was copied everywhere in America.

When our tonnage in the foreign trade almost reached the million mark in 1810, the most efficient ships in the world were those under the American flag. And the character of our merchant seamen is shown by the fact that when the British confiscated one of our ships, they were obliged to cut down her spars before they could handle her. And yet some of our nautical writers would have us believe that American ships increased in number in those days because, they say, a discriminating duty laid on imports brought to the country in foreign ships afforded "protection" to ships under the American flag!