After Great Britain repudiated Erskine's arrangement to revoke the Orders in Council, Congress went to work to draw up plans to renew the Non-Intercourse act with Great Britain. Nathaniel Macon, head of the House committee on the Non-intercourse act consulted with Albert Gallatin, the secretary of treasurer to draw up a new plan. This plan was accepted without opposition by the Cabinet and was reported to the House in the form of a bill known as "Macon's Bill Number one". The bill excluded all British or French war and merchant vessels from the ports of the United States and prohibited all importation of goods from either country unless brought directly from that country on an American vessel. But the bill had one caveat, should either country remove their restriction against neutral trade with the United States, then these prohibitions would be discontinued and trade with that nation would be renewed. In essence, the bill was both a threat and an invitation to return to neutral trade status.
The House was practically unanimous in their acceptance of this bill, except for the Federalists who held that the bill was merely a rehash of old bills. They claimed that Great Britain would retaliate and the bill would never be carried into effect. The bill finally passed in the house with a slim majority of 73 to 52, and was passed to the Senate. The Senate amended the bill by striking out all the sections prohibiting British and French merchant vessels from entering American ports. It also limited the act to the next session of Congress. The House refused to accept these conditions and the bill was lost.
Then, on April 8, 1810, Congress introduced a new bill, known as Macon's Bill Number 2 even though Nathaniel Macon had nothing to do with it and didn't even support it. This bill gave Great Britain or France approximately 11 months to revoke her edicts. If not, the president was authorized within three months to put the non-intercourse regulations into effect against that country. The bill passed the House on April 19 by a vote of 61 to 40 with further amendments and was passed back to the Senate where it was approved on May 1, 1810.
President James Madison was a staunch opponent of the bill, but nevertheless signed the bill into law on May 14, 1810. Immediately Napoleon saw a chance to exploit the bill in order to further his Continental plan which he believed would destroy Britain's economy. A message was sent to the the United States, providing that the American merchant ships would be recognized as neutral carriers. Madison grudgingly accepted Napoleon's offer, but quickly realized that Napoleon had no intentions of ever following through on his promise. In Madison's second annual address he explained the situation. A copy of Macons Bill Number 2 was sent to both Great Britain and France. France did not reply directly, but word was sent through the U.S. minister at Paris that the French Government would revoke the Berlin and Milan decrees. While, this would be wonderful news, there was no real evidence of it. It was anticipated that France would immediately restore the property of American citizens taken as reprisals under false application of U.S. Laws. But this did not happen. Here are Madison's words from his annual address on the subject:
"The embarrassments which have prevailed in our foreign relations, and so much employed the deliberations of Congress, make it a primary duty in meeting you to communicate whatever may have occurred in that branch of our national affairs.In 1811, Madison again returned to the subject of France and the repeal of her decrees. In November of 1811, there still was no proof that France had any intention of repairing the wrongs done to America by her government. Aside from not restoring the "great amount of American property seized and condemned under edicts", the trade with France was still very restricted.
The act of the last session of Congress concerning the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France and their dependencies having invited in a new form a termination of their edicts against our neutral commerce, copies of the act were immediately forwarded to our ministers at London and Paris, with a view that its object might be within the
early attention of the French and British Governments.
By the communication received through our minister at Paris it appeared that knowledge of the act by the French Government was followed by a declaration that the Berlin and Milan decrees were revoked, and would cease to have effect on the first day of November ensuing. These being the only known edicts of France within the description of the act, and the revocation of them being such that they ceased at that date to violate our neutral commerce, the fact, as prescribed by law, was announced by a proclamation bearing date the 2nd of November.
It would have well accorded with the conciliatory views indicated by this proceeding on the part of France to have extended them to all the grounds of just complaint which now remain unadjusted with the United States. It was particularly anticipated that, as a further evidence of just dispositions toward them, restoration would have been immediately made of the property of our citizens under a misapplication of the principle of reprisals combined with a misconstruction of a law of the United States. This expectation has not been fulfilled."
"The justice and fairness which have been evinced on the part of the United States toward France, both before and since the revocation of her decrees, authorized an expectation that her Government would have followed up that measure by all such others as were due to our reasonable claims, as well s dictated by its amicable professions. No proof, however, is yet given of an intention to repair the other wrongs done to the United States, and particularly to restore the great amount of American property seized and condemned under edicts which, though not affecting our neutral relations, and therefore not entering into questions between the United States and other belligerents, were nevertheless founded in such unjust principles that the reparation ought to have been prompt and ample.
In addition to this and other demands of strict right on that nation, the United States have much reason to be dissatisfied with the rigorous and unexpected restrictions to which their trade with the French dominions has been subjected, and which, if not discontinued, will require at least corresponding restrictions on importations from France into the United States.
On all those subjects our minister plenipotentiary lately sent to Paris has carried with him the necessary instructions, the result of which will be communicated to you, by ascertaining the ulterior policy of the French Government toward the United States, will enable you to adapt to it that of the United States toward France."
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29452
The United States: its beginnings, progress and modern development, Volume 5 by Jesse Ames Spencer (1912)
pg. 225 to 232
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macon%27s_Bill_Number_1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macon%27s_Bill_Number_2
http://www.historycentral.com/Bio/ant/Macon.html
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/NC-Congress-NathanielMacon.jpg
can you give more information
ReplyDelete