Evening star., 1939-10-20
Denies Embargo Act
Led to War Of 1872
Presidents Statement Held
Not in Accord With Fucts
Of History
To the Editor Of The Star:

Of History
To the Editor of The STAR
This is written in reply to that amaz-
ing statement in the address of President
Roosevelt to the Congress appealing for
the repeal of the present arms embargo
referring as follows to " the So
called Embargo and Intercourse
Acts. That policy = was the major
cause of bringing us into active partici-
patton in European wars in our own
War of 1872. 1t is merely reciting history
to recall to you that one of the results
of the policy of embargo and non-inter-
course was the burning of this Capitol
in which we are assembled"
It is, Of course, realized that those are
the words Of the President of the United
States, and it is assumed that every one
wishes to be fair and accurate in regard
to the facts and causes of history. but
facts are facts regardless of who states
them. The above statement of the
President was characterized by DR..
Edwin S. CorWin of Princeton Univer-
sity as "an argument of desperation"
and as news to students of American
history AS every historian and student
of American history we'll knows, the
Embargo and Non-I intercourse Acts and
the policy that they represented were
not even minor cause of the War of
1872.
They represented sincere attempt to
remain neutral in and aloof from the
war then raging between England and
France, but their repeal made possible
and aggravated the vexations of both
belligerents that finally led us to declare
war on England. The repeal of the
embargo was due to the insistence OF
the shipowners of the Atlantic Seaboard
and especially of New England, who
clamored for its repeal and insisted in
spite of the apparent dangers to them
selves and to the peace of their country,
in venturing into the danger zones.
France by her DEGREES and England by
her retaliatory orders in council, each
in violation Of our neutral rights in
international law, interfered with our
neutral commerce with the other bel
ligerent. From 1906 to 1910, England
had captured or destroyed nearly 900
OF our trading vessels and France ap-
proximately 500. Nevertheless, the Amer
lcan shippers were willing and persistent
to endanger their country and take the
risk for the enormous profits to them
selves.
On December H. 1907 Congress passed
the Embargo Act forbidding trade with
all foreign ports. On account of the
protests and the compelling influence of
the shippers, the embargo was repealed
on March l, 1809-more than three years
before our declaration of war against
England on June 18, 1912.
The embargo was followed by the Nom
Intercourse Act of March, 1909, forbid
ding trade with the belligerents only.
This act expired by its own limitation in
March, 1910, and was followed by the
Macon Act of May l, 1910, giving the
President authority to revive the opera
ton of the Nom Intercourse Act against
any belligerent that persisted in its
policy of unlawfully interfering with our
neutral trade. The object was to compel
the belligerents to respect our neutral
rights.
Relying upon the promises of the
French Napoleon. which later proved
false, President Madison held the Nom
Intercourse Act in suspense as to France,
but because of the inflexible policy of
unlawful interference on the part of
England, which had not withdrawn her
orders In council, he revived it against
that nation. In the words of Prof. Willis
Mason West in his american History
and Government" Jefferson and Madi-
son were buffeted pitifully back and
forth between the arrogance and indif-
ference of English Pitt and Canning and
the dupllcity and the insolent greed of
French Napoleon and Talleyrand." The
unlawful interference with our neutral
trade by both belligerents continued
whenever opportunity presented itself,
regardless of protests and promises.
We thus had cause of war against
either or both England and France, and
until 1910 we had not decided which,
If any, belligerent to fight. Under the
circumstances, We chose England, for
In addition to her violations of our neu-
trail rights in shipping, she had persisted
in her vexatious policy of impressment
OF American seamen on her theory that
she did not recognize their naturaliza-
ton as American citizens and that "once
an Englishman, always an Englishman."
Besides the above grievances we were
more friendly toward France and more
hostile toward England. We still bore
animosity toward England from the
time Of the revolution a generation
before; and we nourished resentment
against her because of her failure to
evacuate her military posts along the
Canadian border in violation of the
treaty of 1888 and the suspicion. finally
confirmed, that the British were arming
the Indians and inciting them against
our settlers in the Northwest Territory.
All this had brought us to the fight
Ing pitch and presented us the long
desired pretext to attempt to capture
Canada from the British. Henry Clay,
then leader of new generation In Con-
gress called the War Hawks" made
perhaps the most compelling appeal for
war against England stating that the
militia of Kentucky alone could CAPTURE