The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-04-29

II The Embargo, however, is a restriction
always uirler Our own controcl Ii was a
measure altogether of defence, and of expo
riracnc--Ifit was iniudicially or ovcr-hastilS
laid, II has been every day since its adopti-
on open to 4 repeal If it should prove inef-
isca,al for the purpose which it was meant
10 secure, single day will suffice to unbar
the doors. Still believing it Il measure JUS
tilted by the circumstances of the time, i
am ready tn admit that those who thought
otherwise may have had wiser foresight
of events, and "a sounder judgement of the
then existing state of things, than the major
.itv of the National Legislature, and the Pre-
sident. 1t has been approved by several of
the State. Legislatures, and among the rest
by our own-Yet of all it's effects we are still
unable To Judge with certainty. Ii must
still abide the test of futuritv. / shall add
that there were other motives which had
their operation in contributing to the pas
sage of the act, unnoticed by Mr.. Picker
ing. and which having now ceased will al
so be left unnoticed by HE. The orders of
Council Of i1th Nov still suhsist in all their
force, and are now confirmed, with the adj
dition of tarafion, by act of Parliament.
As they stand in front OF the real causes
for the Embargo, SO they arc entitled to the
same pre-eminence in enume, ating the eau
ses of hostility, which the BritshiMinisters
are accommodating upon our forbearancc.-
They strike at the root of our independence.
They assume the principle that we shall
:have no commerce in time OF war, but with
her donnions, and as tributaries to her.
The exclusive confinement of commerce to
the mother-countrv. is the great principle of
the modern colonial sy stem and should we
bv dercliction of our rights at this mo-
mentous stride of encroachment, surrender
our commercial freedom without struggle
Britain has but single step more to take,
and she brings US back to the stamp act and
the tea tax.
Yet these orders--thuS fatal to the liber-
ties for which the heroes Of our revolution
toiled and bled--tllus studiously concealed
until the moment when they burst upon our
heads-thus issued at the very instant when
mission of atonement was professedly sent
lin these orders we are to see nothing but
"a "rctaliating order upon France"-in these
orders, we must not find so much as cause
may not so much as a pretence, for COM
plant against Britain.
To my mind, sir, in comparison with
those orders, the three causes TO which Mr.
Pickering explicitly limits our grounds for a
rupture with England, might indeed be just
ly denominated fretences-in comparison
with them, former aggressions sink into in
significance 10 argue upon the subject of
our disputes with Britain, or upon the EN-
barge, and keep them cut of sight, is like
laying your finger over the unit before Sc
ries OF noughts, and then automatically pro-
wing that they are all nothing.
1t is net however in a mere omission, nor
yet in the history of the Embargo, that the
inaccuracies Of the statement ] am 'examin-
ing have given me the most serious concern;
1T is in the view taken of the questions i'm
controversy between us and Blitain. The
wisdom of the Embargo is question of
great, but transient magnitude, and omissi-
ON sacrifices no national right Mr.. Picker
ing's object was to dissuadc the nation from
q war with England, into which he suspect
ed the administration was plunging us, un-
der French compulsion. But the tendency
OF his pamphlet is TO reconcile the nation. or
at least the commercial states, to the servi-
tude of British protection, and war with all
tie rest Of Europe. Hence England is re-
presented as contending for the common Ii
berries of mankind, and our only safe guard
against the ambition and Injustice of France.
Hence all our sensibilities are invoked in
her favor, and all our antipathies against
her antagonist. Hence too all the subjects
OF difference between us and Britain are al
lodged to be on our part mere 1lretences, of
which the right is unequivocally pronounced
to be on her side Proceeding from a Sena-
tor of the United States, specially charged as
a member of the executive with the mainte-
nance of the nations rights, against foreign
q powers. and at a moment extremely critical
of pending negotiation upon all the points
thus delineated, this formal abandonment of
the American cause, this summons of uncon-
ditional surrender to the pretehsions of our
antagonist, is in my mind high alarming
1t becomes therefore duty, to which every
other consideration must yield, to point out
the errors of this representation. Before
we strike the standard of the nation, let
us at least examine the purport of the sum-
mons.
And first, with respect to the impressmcnt
of our seamen. We are told that " the tax
ing of British seamen found on board our
merchant vessels, by British ships of war,
is agreeaby to a right, claimed and cxerci-
sed for ages" 1t is obvious that this claim
and exercise ofages, could not apply TO us,
as an independent people. If the right
was claimed and exercised while our vessels
were navigating under the British flag, it
could not authorize the same claim when
their owners have become the citizens of a
sovereign state. As a relic of colonial servi
tudc, whatever may be claim of Great-Bri-
tain, it surely can be no ground for contend
ing that it is entitled to our Submission.
If it be meant that the right has been
claimed and exercised for ages over the
merchant vessels Of other nations, appre-
bend it is q mistake. The case never occur
rcd with sufficient frequency to constitute e.
ven practice, much less right. IF it had