what did the u.s. congress hope to accomplish by passing the embargo act of 1807?

1807 U.Southward. police forbidding trade with all other countries

Embargo Human action of 1807

Long title	An Act laying an Embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United states of america.
Enacted by	the 10th United States Congress
Constructive	December 22, 1807
Citations
Public constabulary	Pub.Fifty. 10–5
Statutes at Big	ii Stat. 451, Chap. 5
Legislative history
Introduced in the Senate past Samuel Smith on Dec 18, 1807 Passed the Senate on December xviii, 1807 (22–6) Passed the Business firm on December 21, 1807 (82–44) with amendment Senate agreed to House amendment on December 22, 1807 (unknown votes) Signed into law by President Thomas Jefferson on December 22, 1807
Major amendments
Repealed by Non-Intercourse Human activity § 19

The Embargo Act of 1807 was a full general trade embargo on all foreign nations that was enacted past the The states Congress. As a successor or replacement law for the 1806 Not-importation Act and passed as the Napoleonic Wars continued, it represented an escalation of attempts to coerce Britain to stop whatsoever impressment of American sailors and to respect American sovereignty and neutrality but besides attempted to pressure France and other nations in the pursuit of full general diplomatic and economic leverage.

In the beginning decade of the 19th century, American shipping grew. During the Napoleonic Wars, rival nations Britain and French republic targeted neutral American shipping as a means to disrupt the trade of the other nation. American merchantmen who were trading with "enemy nations" were seized every bit contraband of war past European navies. The British Purple Navy had impressed American sailors who had either been British-built-in or previously serving on British ships, even if they at present claimed to be American citizens with American papers. Incidents such every bit the Chesapeake–Leopard affair outraged Americans.

Congress imposed the embargo in direct response to these events. President Thomas Jefferson acted with restraint, weighed public support for retaliation, and recognized that the United States was militarily far weaker than either Uk or France. He recommended that Congress reply with commercial warfare, a policy that appealed to Jefferson both for being experimental and for foreseeably harming his domestic political opponents more than than his allies, whatsoever its issue on the European belligerents. The 10th Congress was controlled by his allies and agreed to the Act, which was signed into law on Dec 22, 1807.

The embargo proved to be a complete failure. It failed to improve the American diplomatic position, highlighted American weakness and lack of leverage, significantly (and only) damaged the American economy, and sharply increased domestic political tensions. Both widespread evasion of the embargo and loopholes in the legislation reduced its impact on its targets. British commercial aircraft, which already dominated global trade, was successfully adapting to Napoleon'southward Continental Arrangement by pursuing new markets, peculiarly in the restive Castilian and Portuguese colonies in South America. Thus, British merchants were well-positioned to grow at American expense when the embargo sharply reduced American trade activity.

The embargo undermined American unity by provoking bitter protests, especially in New England commercial centers. Support for the declining Federalist Party, which intensely opposed Jefferson, temporarily rebounded and drove electoral gains in 1808 (Senate and Firm). The embargo simultaneously undermined Americans' faith that their regime could execute laws fairly and strengthened the European perception that the republican course of authorities was inept and ineffectual.

Replacement legislation for the ineffective embargo was enacted on March one, 1809, in the terminal days of Jefferson'south presidency. Tensions with Britain continued to grow and eventually led to the State of war of 1812.

Background [edit]

After the short truce in 1802–1803, the European wars resumed and continued until the defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte in 1814.^[1] The war acquired American relations with both Britain and France to deteriorate apace. In that location was grave gamble of state of war with one or the other. With Britain supreme on the bounding main and France on the state, the war developed into a struggle of blockade and counterblockade. The commercial war peaked in 1806 and 1807. United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland's Royal Navy close downward most European harbors to American ships unless they first traded through British ports. France declared a paper blockade of Britain but lacked a navy that could enforce it and seized American ships that obeyed British regulations. The Royal Navy needed large numbers of sailors, and was deeply angered at the American merchant fleet for being a haven for British deserters.^[2]

Thomas Jefferson, United States of America President from 1801–1809 and signer of the Embargo Act

British impressment of American sailors humiliated the United states, which showed information technology to be unable to protect its ships and their sailors.^[3] The British practice of taking British deserters, many of them now American subjects, from American ships and conscripting them into the Royal Navy increased greatly after 1803, and it acquired biting anger in the Us.

On June 21, 1807, an American warship, the USS Chesapeake, was boarded on the high seas off the coast of Norfolk, Virginia^[iv] past a British warship, HMS Leopard. The Chesapeake had been carrying four deserters from the Majestic Navy, iii of them American and one British. The 4 deserters, who had been issued American papers, were removed from the Chesapeake and taken to Halifax, Nova Scotia where the solitary Briton was hanged while the iii Americans were initially sentenced to 500 lashes. (American diplomatic pressure led to the render of the three Americans, without the dispensing of punishment.) The outraged nation demanded action, and President Jefferson ordered all British ships out of American waters.^[5]

Initial legislation [edit]

Passed on December 22, 1807, the Act did the following:^[6]

• An embargo was laid on all ships and vessels under US jurisdiction.
• All ships and vessels were prevented from obtaining clearance to undertake in voyages to strange ports or places.
• The U.s. President was allowed to make exceptions for ships under his immediate direction.
• The President was authorized to enforce via instructions to revenue officers and the Navy.
• It was not constructed to prevent the departure of any foreign ship or vessel, with or without cargo on lath,
• A bond or surety was required from merchant ships on a voyage between Us ports.
• Warships were exempted from the embargo provisions.

The aircraft embargo was a cumulative addition to the Non-importation Human activity of 1806 (2 Stat. 379), which was a "Prohibition of the Importation of certain Goods and Merchandise from the Kingdom of Bully Great britain," the prohibited imported goods being defined where their chief value, which consists of leather, silk, hemp or flax, tin or brass, wool, glass, and paper goods, nails, hats, clothing, and beer.^[seven]

The Embargo Act of 1807 was codified at two Stat. 451 and formally titled "An Embargo laid on Ships and Vessels in the Ports and Harbours of the U.s.." The bill was drafted at the request of President Thomas Jefferson and was passed by the 10th Congress on Dec 22, 1807, during Session 1; Chapter 5. Congress initially acted to enforce a bill prohibiting only imports, but supplements to the pecker eventually banned exports as well.

Impact on U.s. trade [edit]

Engraved teapot encouraging support for the Embargo: Encircling the lid is "Jefferson and the Embargo". On one side is "Listen your business organization" and on the other is "Prudence is the best Remedy for hard times"

The embargo finer throttled American overseas trade. All areas of the nation suffered. In commercial New England and the Middle Atlantic, ships sat idle. In agricultural areas, particularly the S, farmers and planters could not sell crops internationally. Scarcity of European goods stimulated American manufacturing, particularly in the North, but with manufacturing in its infancy and with Britain still able to export to America particularly through Canada, that benefit did not recoup for the loss of trade and economic momentum.^[8] A 2005 study by the economic historian Douglas Irwin estimates that the embargo cost about 5% of America'southward 1807 gross national product.^[9]

Miniature engraved teapots were manufactured to bolster flagging popular support for the Embargo Act. The slogans on the teapots were intended to reinforce the principles driving the authorities'south ongoing embargo confronting Britain and France.^[10]

Case studies [edit]

A case study of Rhode Island shows the embargo to have devastated shipping-related industries, wrecked existing markets, and caused an increase in opposition to the Democratic–Republican Political party. Smuggling was widely endorsed by the public, which viewed the embargo as a violation of its rights. Public outcry continued and helped the Federalists regain control of the land government in 1808–1809. The case is a rare case of American national foreign policy altering local patterns of political fidelity.

Despite its unpopular nature, the Embargo Act had some limited unintended benefits to the Northeast, especially by driving capital and labor into New England textile and other manufacturing industries, which lessened America's reliance on British trade.^[11]

In Vermont, the embargo was doomed to failure on the Lake Champlain–Richeleiu River water road because of the land'due south dependence on a Canadian outlet for produce. At St. John, Lower Canada, £140,000 worth of goods smuggled past water were recorded at that place in 1808, a 31% increase over 1807. Shipments of ashes to make soap about doubled to £54,000, but those of lumber dropped past 23% to £11,200. Manufactured appurtenances, which had expanded to £50,000 since Jay's Treaty in 1795, fell by over xx%, especially articles made near tidewater. Newspapers and manuscripts recorded more lake activity than usual, despite the theoretical reduction in shipping that should accompany an embargo. The smuggling was not restricted to water routes, as herds were readily driven across the uncontrollable country border. Southbound commerce gained two thirds overall, only furs dropped a third. Customs officials maintained a opinion of vigorous enforcement throughout, and Gallatin's Enforcement Act (1809) was a party consequence. Many Vermonters preferred the embargo'southward exciting game of revenuers versus smugglers, which brought high profits, versus mundane, depression-profit normal trade.^[12]

The New England merchants who evaded the embargo were imaginative, daring, and versatile in their violation of federal constabulary. Gordinier (2001) examines how the merchants of New London, Connecticut, organized and managed the cargoes purchased and sold and the vessels that were used during the years before, during, and afterward the embargo. Trade routes and cargoes, both strange and domestic, along with the vessel types, and the means that their ownership and management were organized show the merchants of southeastern Connecticut evinced versatility in the face of crunch.^[13]

Gordinier (2001) concludes that the versatile merchants sought alternative strategies for their commerce and, to a lesser extent, for their navigation. They tried extralegal activities, a reduction in the size of the foreign armada, and the redocumentation of foreign trading vessels into domestic carriage. Most importantly, they sought new domestic trading partners and took advantage of the political power of Jedidiah Huntington, the Customs Collector. Huntington was an influential member of the Connecticut leadership form (called "the Continuing Society") and allowed scores of embargoed vessels to depart for foreign ports under the guise of "special permission." One-time modes of sharing vessel ownership to share the risk proved to be difficult to modify. Instead, established relationships continued through the embargo crisis despite numerous bankruptcies.^[thirteen]

Enforcement efforts [edit]

Jefferson's Secretarial assistant of the Treasury, Albert Gallatin, was confronting the entire embargo and foresaw correctly the impossibility of enforcing the policy and the negative public reaction. "As to the promise that it may... induce England to treat united states better," wrote Gallatin to Jefferson shortly afterward the bill had become law, "I think is entirely groundless... government prohibitions practice always more mischief than had been calculated; and it is not without much hesitation that a statesman should hazard to regulate the concerns of individuals as if he could practise it amend than themselves."^{[xiv] : 368}

Since the beak hindered US ships from leaving American ports bound for foreign trade, information technology had the side effect of hindering American exploration.

First supplementary human activity [edit]

Just weeks later, on January viii, 1808, legislation again passed the 10th Congress, Session 1; Chapter 8: "An Act supplementary..." to the Embargo Deed (ii Stat. 453). As the historian Forrest McDonald wrote, "A loophole had been discovered" in the initial enactment, "namely that coasting vessels, and fishing and whaling boats" had been exempt from the embargo, and they had been circumventing it, primarily via Canada. The supplementary act extended the bonding provision (Section 2 of the initial Embargo Act) to those of purely-domestic trades:^[15]

• Sections i and ii of the supplementary act required bonding to coasting, fishing, and whaling ships and vessels. Fifty-fifty river boats had to postal service a bond.
• Department three made violations of either the initial or supplementary act an law-breaking. Failure of the shipowner to comply would effect in forfeiture of the ship and its cargo or a fine of double that value and the denial of credit for employ in custom duties. A captain declining to comply would be fined between one and 20 thousand dollars and would forfeit the ability to swear an adjuration before whatever customs officer.
• Section 4 removed the warship exemption from applying to privateers or vessels with a letter of marque.
• Section 5 established a fine for foreign ships loading trade for export and allowed for its seizure.

Meanwhile, Jefferson requested say-so from Congress to heighten 30,000 troops from the current standing army of 2,800, but Congress refused. With their harbors for the most office unusable in the winter anyway, New England and the northern ports of the mid-Atlantic states had paid little notice to the previous embargo acts. That was to change with the spring thaw and the passing of still some other embargo act.^{[xiv] : 147}

With the coming of the bound, the effect of the previous acts were immediately felt throughout the coastal states, specially in New England. An economical downturn turned into a depression and acquired increasing unemployment. Protests occurred upwardly and downwardly the eastern coast. Most merchants and shippers but ignored the laws. On the Canada–US edge, especially in Upstate New York and in Vermont, the embargo laws were openly flouted. Federal officials believed parts of Maine, such as Passamaquoddy Bay on the border with the British territory of New Brunswick, were in open rebellion. Past March, an increasingly-frustrated Jefferson had become resolved to enforce the embargo to the letter of the alphabet.^{[ citation needed ]}

Other supplements to Human action [edit]

On March 12, 1808, Congress passed and Jefferson signed into law still another supplement to the Embargo Human activity. It^[sixteen] prohibited for the first time all exports of any goods, whether by country or by ocean. Violators were bailiwick to a fine of $10,000, plus forfeiture of goods, per offense. It granted the President wide discretionary authority to enforce, deny, or grant exceptions to the embargo.^{[14] : 144} Port authorities were authorized to seize cargoes without a warrant and to try whatever shipper or merchant who was thought to accept just contemplated violating the embargo.

Despite the added penalties, citizens and shippers openly ignored the embargo. Protests connected to grow and so the Jefferson administration requested and Congress rendered nonetheless another embargo human activity.

Consequences [edit]

An 1807 political cartoon showing merchants caught by a snapping turtle named "Ograbme" ("Embargo" spelled backwards). The embargo was also ridiculed in the New England printing as Dambargo, Mob-Rage, or Become-bar-'em.

The embargo injure the United states of america as much every bit it did United kingdom or French republic. Great britain, expecting to endure near from the American regulations, built upward a new South American market for its exports, and the British shipowners were pleased that American contest had been removed by the activity of the United states of america regime.

Jefferson placed himself in a strange position with his embargo policy. Though he had so ofttimes and eloquently argued for as little government intervention as possible, he now found himself assuming extraordinary powers in an try to enforce his policy. The presidential ballot of 1808 had James Madison defeat Charles Cotesworth Pinckney but showed that the Federalists were regaining force and helped to convince Jefferson and Madison that the embargo would have to be removed.^[17]

Shortly before leaving function in March 1809, Jefferson signed the repeal of the failed Embargo. Despite its unpopular nature, the Embargo Human activity had some limited unintended benefits, specially as entrepreneurs and workers responded by bringing in fresh uppercase and labor to New England textile and other manufacturing industries, which lessened America'south reliance on the British trade.^{[11] [xviii]}

Repeal [edit]

On March i, 1809, Congress passed the Not-Intercourse Human activity. The police force enabled the President, once the wars of Europe had ended, to declare the land sufficiently safe and to allow foreign trade with certain nations.^[nineteen]

In 1810, the regime was set to try yet another tactic of economic coercion, the desperate measure known equally Macon'southward Bill Number 2.^[twenty] The bill became law on May 1, 1810 and replaced the Non-Intercourse Act. It was an acknowledgment of the failure of economic pressure to coerce the European powers. Trade with both Britain and France was now thrown open, and the US attempted to deal with the two belligerents. If either ability removed its restrictions on American commerce, the Usa would reapply non-intercourse against the power that had non done so.

Napoleon quickly took advantage of that opportunity. He promised that his Berlin and Milan Decrees would be repealed, and Madison reinstated non-intercourse against United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland in the fall of 1810. Though Napoleon did non fulfill his promise, the strained Anglo-American relations prevented him from being brought to task for his duplicity.^[21]

The attempts of Jefferson and Madison to secure recognition of American neutrality via peaceful means gained a belated success in June 1812, when Great britain finally promised to repeal their 1807 Orders in Council. The British concession was besides late since when the news had reached America, the U.s.a. had already alleged the War of 1812 confronting Britain.

Wartime legislation [edit]

America'south proclamation of war in mid-June 1812 was followed soon past the Enemy Trade Deed of 1812 on July half-dozen, which employed similar restrictions as previous legislation.^[22] information technology was also ineffective and tightened in December 1813 and debated for further tightening in Dec 1814. After existing embargoes expired with the onset of state of war, the Embargo Act of 1813 was signed into law Dec 17, 1813.^[23] Iv new restrictions were included: an embargo prohibiting all American ships and goods from leaving port, a complete ban on certain bolt customarily produced in the British Empire, a ban against foreign ships trading in American ports unless 75% of the crew were citizens of the ship'due south flag, and a ban on ransoming ships. The Embargo of 1813 was the nation's last great trade restriction. Never again would the US authorities cut off all trade to achieve a foreign policy objective.^[24] The Act peculiarly hurt the Northeast since the British kept a tighter blockade on the S and thus encouraged American opposition to the administration. To brand his point, the Deed was not lifted by Madison until after the defeat of Napoleon, and the point was moot.

On February fifteen, 1815, Madison signed the Enemy Trade Deed of 1815,^[25] which was tighter than whatever previous trade restriction including the Enforcement Human action of 1809 (January 9) and the Embargo of 1813, but it would expire ii weeks later when official give-and-take of peace from Ghent was received.^{[26] [27]}

See also [edit]

• Bibliography of Thomas Jefferson
• Second-term curse

References [edit]

1. ^ Napoleon's brief return during the "Hundred Days" had no bearing on the Us.
2. ^ DeToy, Brian (1998). "The Impressment of American Seamen during the Napoleonic Wars". Consortium on Revolutionary Europe 1750–1850: Selected Papers, 1998. Florida State University. pp. 492–501.
3. ^ Gilje, Paul A. (Leap 2010). "'Free Trade and Sailors' Rights': The Rhetoric of the War of 1812". Periodical of the Early Republic. 30 (i): 1–23. doi:x.1353/jer.0.0130. S2CID 145098188.
4. ^ "Embargo of 1807". Monticello and the Thomas Jefferson Foundation. Retrieved Dec 18, 2015.
5. ^ Tucker, Spencer C.; Reuter, Frank T. (1996). Injured Award: The Chesapeake-Leopard Affair. Naval Institute Press. ISBNone-55750-824-0.
6. ^ 2 Stat. 451 (1807) Library of Congress, U.South. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774–1875
7. ^ ii Stat. 379 (1806) Library of Congress, U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774–1875
8. ^ Malone, Dumas (1974). Jefferson the President: The Second Term . Boston: Brownish-Little. ISBN0-316-54465-5.
9. ^ Irwin, Douglas (September 2005). "The Welfare Toll of Autarky: Evidence from the Jeffersonian Trade Embargo, 1807–09" (PDF). Review of International Economic science. 13 (iv): 631–645. doi:ten.1111/j.1467-9396.2005.00527.ten.
10. ^ "Thomas Jefferson: The Original Isolationist". The Federalist. September 23, 2013. Retrieved February vii, 2021.
11. ^ ^{a b} Strum, Harvey (May 1994). "Rhode Island and the Embargo of 1807" (PDF). Rhode Island History. 52 (2): 58–67. ISSN 0035-4619. Although the country'southward manufacturers benefited from the embargo, taking advantage of the increased need for domestically produced goods (especially cotton products), and merchants with idle capital were able to motion from shipping and merchandise into manufacturing, this industrial growth did not compensate for the considerable distress that the embargo caused.
12. ^ Muller, H. Nicholas III (Wintertime 1970). "Smuggling into Canada: How the Champlain Valley Defied Jefferson's Embargo" (PDF). Vermont History. 38 (one): v–21.
13. ^ ^{a b} Gordinier, Glenn Stine (January 2001). Versatility in Crisis: The Merchants of the New London Customs District Respond to the Embargo of 1807–1809 (PhD dissertation). U. of Connecticut. AAI3004842.
14. ^ ^{a b c} Adams, Henry (1879). Gallatin to Jefferson, December 1807. The Writings of Albert Gallatin. Vol. 1. Philadelphia: Lippincott.
15. ^ ii Stat. 453 (1808) Library of Congress, U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774–1875
16. ^ "Statutes at Large: Congress 10 | Constabulary Library of Congress". www.loc.gov. September 2014. Retrieved January 15, 2020.
17. ^ Tucker, Robert W.; Hendrickson, David C. (1990). "Chapter twenty". Empire of Liberty: The Statecraft of Thomas Jefferson . Oxford Academy Press. ISBN0-nineteen-506207-8.
18. ^ Frankel, Jeffrey A. (June 1982). "The 1807–1809 Embargo Against Great Britain". Journal of Economic History. 42 (ii): 291–308. doi:10.1017/S0022050700027443. JSTOR 2120129.
19. ^ Heidler, David Stephen; Heidler, Jeanne T., eds. (2004). Encyclopedia of the War of 1812. Naval Plant Press. pp. 390–91. ISBN978-i-591-14362-eight.
20. ^ Wills, Garry (2002). James Madison: The fourth President, 1809–1817. The American Presidents Serial. Vol. four. p. 87. ISBN978-0-8050-6905-1.
21. ^ Merrill, Dennis; Paterson, Thomas (September 2009). Major Bug in American Foreign Relations: To 1920. Cengage Learning. pp. 132–33. ISBN978-0-547-21824-iii . Retrieved December 21, 2011.
22. ^ "Enemy Trade Human action of 1812 ~ P.L. 12-129" (PDF). 2 Stat. 778 ~ Chapter CXXIX. USLaw.Link. July half-dozen, 1812.
23. ^ "Embargo Act of 1813 ~ P.L. 13-one" (PDF). three Stat. 88 ~ Affiliate I. USLaw.Link. December 17, 1813.
24. ^ Hickey, Donald R. (1989). "Ch.vii: The Last Embargo". The State of war of 1812 – A Forgotten Conflict. pp. 172, 181. ISBN9780252060595.
25. ^ "Enemy Trade Act of 1815 ~ P.L. thirteen-31" (PDF). 3 Stat. 195 ~ Affiliate XXXI. USLaw.Link. Feb 4, 1815.
26. ^ Tucker, Spencer C.; Arnold, James R., eds. (2012). The Encyclopedia Of the War Of 1812, a political, social, and military history. ABC-CLIO. pp. 221–25. ISBN978-1-85109-956-6.
27. ^ "Enforcement Deed of 1809 ~ P.L. ten-5" (PDF). 2 Stat. 506 ~ Chapter V. USLaw.Link. January ix, 1809.

Further reading [edit]

• Hofstadter, Richard. 1948. The American Political Tradition (Chapter 11) Alfred A. Knopf. in Essays on the Early Republic, 1789–1815 Leonard Levy, Editor. Dryden Printing, 1974.
• Irwin, Douglas A. (2005). "The Welfare Price of Autarky: Evidence from the Jeffersonian Trade Embargo, 1807–09" (PDF). Review of International Economics. xiii (4): 631–45. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9396.2005.00527.x.
• Kaplan, Lawrence South. (1957). "Jefferson, the Napoleonic Wars, and the Residuum of Power". William and Mary Quarterly. xiv (two): 196–217. doi:10.2307/1922110. JSTOR 1922110. in Essays on the Early Republic, 1789–1815 Leonard Levy, Editor. Dryden Press, 1974.
• Levy, Leonard Westward. (1963). Jefferson and Civil Liberties: The Darker Side. Cambridge: Belknap Press.
• Levy, Leonard. 1974. Essays on the Early on Republic, 1789–1815. Dryden Press, 1974.
• McDonald, Forrest (1976). The Presidency of Thomas Jefferson . Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. ISBN0-7006-0147-3.
• Malone, Dumas (1974). Jefferson the President: The 2d Term . Boston: Niggling, Brown. ISBN0-316-54465-five.
• Mannix, Richard (1979). "Gallatin, Jefferson, and the Embargo of 1808". Diplomatic History. iii (2): 151–72. doi:x.1111/j.1467-7709.1979.tb00307.x.
• Muller, H. Nicholas (1970). "Smuggling into Canada: How the Champlain Valley Defied Jefferson's Embargo". Vermont History. 38 (1): 5–21. ISSN 0042-4161.
• Perkins, Bradford. 1968. Embargo: Alternative to War (Chapter viii from Prologue to War: England and the United States, 1805–1812, Academy of California Press, 1968) in Essays on the Early Commonwealth 1789–1815. Leonard Levy, Editor. Dryden Press, 1974.
• Sears, Louis Martin (1927). Jefferson and the Embargo. Durham: Knuckles University Press.
• Smelser, Marshall (1968). The Democratic Republic, 1801–1815. New York: Harper & Row. ISBN0-06-131406-4.
• Smith, Joshua M. (1998). "'So Far Distant from the Eyes of Authority:' Jefferson's Embargo and the U.South. Navy, 1807–1809". In Symonds, Craig (ed.). New Interpretations in Naval History: Selected Papers from the Twelfth Naval History Symposium. Annapolis, Dr.: Naval Institute Press. pp. 123–40. ISBNane-55750-624-8.
• Smith, Joshua M. (2000). "Murder on Isle au Haut: Violence and Jefferson's Embargo in Coastal Maine, 1808–1809". Maine History. 39 (one): 17–40.
• Smith, Joshua M. (2006). Borderland Smuggling: Patriots, Loyalists, and Illicit Trade in the Northeast, 1783–1820. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. ISBN0-8130-2986-four.
• Spivak, Burton (1979). Jefferson's English Crisis: Commerce, Embargo, and the Republican Revolution. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. ISBN0-8139-0805-1.
• Strum, Harvey (1994). "Rhode Island and the Embargo of 1807". Rhode Island History. 52 (ii): 58–67. ISSN 0035-4619.

External links [edit]

• The Embargo Act of 1807 (James Schouler, The Cracking Republic by the Master Historians Vol. Two, Hubert H. Bancroft and Oliver H. G. Leigh, Ed. (1902)[1897], pp. 335–364)

busseytholonever.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embargo_Act_of_1807

Share this post