Alexandria daily gazette, commercial & political. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1808-1812, 1808-12-16
EMBARGO.
IcoNTINuEB]

We are told by the gentleman from Conri.
not, to be sure, in language equally strong
with that Of the Essex resolutions that re-
eal.ofthe enbargowill not involve us In war
Pnless indeed Donapartc makes war on us ),
at we are not driven to that alternative
at we have yet an honorable and lucrative
Il&de left opeu to US. The same gentleman
.uras said that he will rot consent to so to war
nor rights net well established, but that he
will never abandonsa neutral right which IS
clearly established. From this it would APP
pear. that the gentleman thinks that the Bril-
fish orders in council are no infringement
on the rights of neutral nations. Mr.. Hill
house said he did not say so. 4 did not
say that the gentleman said SO; butt draw
the Inference from the gentieman's position.
mr.. Hillhouss observed that he had said
that he was doubtful whether the nation
should go to war for doubtful rights; but
for rights clearly indisputable he would per-
NIT the arning OF oaF merchant vessels.
The grntleman's explanations, Mr.. Craw-
ford said, did not change the inference ne
had before stated. Ne admits that ne said
that a repeal Of the embargo would not IN
volve tlss nation in war and that in support
of rights not clearly established, he IS not
prepared TO say whether he would 80 to war
or not. here understood the gentleman to
allude to that portion of trade carried on by
exporting the produce of encnlics colonies
to foreign countries. | had thought that
the right of an independent nation to trade
with the whole world except in ports abso-.
Iutely blocsaded, or in ARTICLES coatraband
Of war, was ar:s.sst which could not be de-
MED. right in which, no nation had here
tofoie attempted No control another. The
gentleman from Connecticut says he viii
not go to war for doubtful rights J, and, that
he viii not go to war agsiMst the orders IN
council. can draw no other inference
from these observations, than that the gen.
t.eman conceives that the orders in council
do not infringe our neutral rights or, that
all our rights are doubtful.
How are these orders and DEGREES to be
opposed but by war, except we keep without
their reach? If the embargo produces a
repeal of these edicts, we effect 1t without
going to war. Whenever we repeal the
embargo we are at war, or We abandon our
neutral rights. It is impossible to take the
middle ground, and say. that we do not a.
do not abandon them by trading with Great
Britain alone: You must sobnit or oppose
force to force. Can arming our merchant
vessels & resisting the whole navy OF Great
Britain oppose force to force? 1t is iInpos-
sible. The idea Is absurd.
Z BY way -of ridicuiing the embargo, the
gentleman from Connecticut in his familiar,
way, has attempted to expose this measure.
He elucidated it by, one of those familiar ex-
amples by which he generally exempiifes
his precepts. He says your neighbor tells
you that you shall not trade with anodler
neighbor, and you say you will not trade at
all Now this, he says, is very msgnani-
NOUS, but it's kind of n,agnanimity with
which he is not acquainted. Now let us see
that the magnanimity of that gentleman and
see if il savors more of true magnanimity
than our course. Great Britain and France
each say that We shall not trade with the
other. We say We will not trade with Ell
Their of them, because we believe our trade
20 be important to both of them. The GEN
tleman says it is poor way of defending.
the national rights. Suppose we pursue his
course. Great Britain says We shall not
trade to France; we say We will not, but
will obey her. We will trade upon such
terms as she may impose. $ This will be
nagnanimity indeed this will be defending
commerce with witness. 1t will be bows
ing the neck to the yoke. The opposition
. taxation against our consent at the COM
~ u