Marc Liebman's Blog, page 25

The Politics of War in 1780 Are Similar to Those in 2021

By the end of 1780, in the halls of the British government the realization that the regional conflict in North America had expanded into a global war had sunk in. England was losing and losing bad. Any optimism that the rebels would fold in 1776 at the first sight of British steel had long dissipated.

Burgoyne had surrendered in the fall of 1777 and by the end of 1778, arch enemies France, Spain and The Netherlands were now openly helping the rebels. In the Caribbean, the French have taken the British controlled Dominica and Grenada. Gibraltar had been under siege since 1779 and was in danger of falling to the combined French and Spanish forces. In India, the French and their Indian allies on the sub-continent were threatening British rule near Madras (now known as Chennai).

At sea, the vaunted Royal Navy was stretched so thin that it couldn’t effectively blockade the North American coast nor protect English colonies. American privateers and the Continental Navy were taking British merchant ships at an alarming rate which meant there were not enough ships to keep British garrisons in the Caribbean, India and North America reinforced and properly supplied.

Members of the Loyal Opposition were questioning the financial cost as well as the cost in English lives. They also began to demand Lord North set an “end date” for the war. Nonetheless, King George III, his minister for North America, Lord Germain and his prime minister, Lord North, were adamant that they wanted to continue the fight against the “rebels” despite the other threats to the British Empire.

By the end of 1780, all Britain controlled was the areas around New York City, Charleston and Savannah. The British Commander in North American, Sir Henry Clinton was telling Germain, North and Parliament that he didn’t have enough men and supplies. He wanted another 30,000 men just to defeat Washington’s Continental Army. Gaining control of the countryside, would require many thousands more.

Even though the British generals in North America shared their pessimistic views of the chances of retaining North America, Clinton repeatedly asked for reinforcements. The denials came with requests for plans, timelines and demands for results, i.e., victory Clinton knew were impossible to meet. Military decisions were being made by politicians in a Parliament 3,000 miles from the battlefields and six to eight weeks away by letter.

Documents from the era show that that while Clinton wasn’t sugarcoating his situation, he also wasn’t completely candid. They also show that neither Lord North nor Lord Germain understood the challenges Clinton faced. They were more focused on maintaining their majority in Parliament.

It was not until Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown did Lords Germain and North accept the reality that the British had no chance of retaining the American colonies. Even then, King George III held out hope until Lord North, and his successors Lords Rockingham and Shelburne convinced him that it was time to admit defeat and negotiate.

When one reads about how British leaders acted during the American Revolution, the parallels to the American experiences in Vietnam and Afghanistan become readily apparent. One would think that U.S. leaders would look at the British experience during the American Revolution and apply those lessons learned before they committed the U.S. to fighting a guerilla war in a land with a hostile population. If they had, we may have avoided the fiascos called Vietnam and Afghanistan.

Image is the British Army surrender at Yorktown, courtesy of the National Museum of American History.

The post The Politics of War in 1780 Are Similar to Those in 2021 appeared first on Marc Liebman.

Value of Rum in London in 1781

Crusaders brought back from the Middle East what they called ‘sweet salt.’ Traders and farmers of the Ottoman Empire introduced ‘refined’ sugar to Europe. The Portuguese brought sugar cane seeds to Eastern Brazil early in the 16th Century. By the mid 1650s, there were several thousand sugar cane mills along the coast of Brazil.

Around 1625, the Dutch brought sugar cane seeds to the Caribbean where the climate was ideal for sugar cane growth. By the end of the 17th Century, sugar cane was grown on islands controlled by the British, Spanish, Dutch and French.

Until the early 18th century, sugar production methods were inefficient and sugar was considered a luxury. However, the demand (and potential profit to be made from sugar production) spurred the development of iron casting technology to produce gears which could be used in sugar mills. In 1768, the first steam-powered sugar mill began operations in Jamaica. Much of the technology developed to process sugarcane more efficiently can be considered early steps in what became the Industrial Revolution.

Why? Money, lots of money was to be made from processing sugar cane. The three most desirable products were sugar and molasses. Rather than ship the molasses overseas, the refiners in the Caribbean began distilling the syrupy liquid into rum.

According to a research piece “Value of a gallon of rum” from The University of Missouri Public Library Online (the link is https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31822015912926&view=1up&seq=908 ), a trader in Jamaica in 1781, could buy rum for 5 shillings/gallon. That same gallon sold for between £2 and £3/gallon in London.

For those of you who don’t remember the pre-decimal English monetary system, there were 10 pence to a shilling, 20 shillings to a pound. In short, the cost of a gallon of rum in Jamaica was roughly 1/12 to 1/8 of what it cost in London.

Fortunes were made in the rum and sugar trade and by the end of the 18th Century, it was the most important import to England! During the Seven Years War, the American Revolution and the French Revolutionary Wars, England and France fought over control of the Caribbean so they could control the supply of sugar, molasses and rum to Europe.

A high-level P&L shows why the economics of the 18th Century rum and sugar trade from the Caribbean was so important. Cost to the trader for the 200 barrels is £5,000 (50 gallons X 5 shillings = £25/barrel) plus shipping costs of £5/barrel or £1,000.

There were other fees involved. Some merchants paid a commission to the ship owner which was split amongst the captain and his crew. When the rum arrived in England, the sale of the rum was taxed. Warehousing and drayage fees were negotiated between the bulk buyers and sellers and had little impact on the margins.

During the six-week transit, it was not uncommon for some of the rum to evaporate, usually about a gallon so for the sake of this example, assume 49 gallons remain in the barrel. At £2/gallon, each barrel is worth £98. At £3/gallon, each barrel is worth £147 which makes the sale price of the 200-barrel shipment between £19,600 and £29,400.

Traders often negotiated a “commission” to the ship owner and crew which amounted to 10% of the retail value of the shipment or £1,960 and £2,940. Assuming a retail sale price of £2/gallon, the trader’s cost to deliver the rum to England is £7,960 and at £3/gallon it is £8,940. This gives the trader a healthy gross profit of between £11,640 and £20,460 for his shipment.

What is this gross profit worth in 2021 English pounds and U.S. dollars? According to the link https://www.in2013dollars.com/uk/inflation/1781, £11,640 in 1781 is worth £2,045,731.65 in September 2021 and £20,460 is worth £3,595,847.91. Converted to dollars at the exchange rate of £1 = $1.28, the gross profit is $2,618,536.51 and $4,602,685.32.

Sugar and molasses had similar margins which meant the sugar, molasses and rum trade was worth fighting over.

Photo is sugar cane in a field in the Caribbean.

The post Value of Rum in London in 1781 appeared first on Marc Liebman.

Origins of the U.S. Post Office

My bet there’s not one of you who have not cursed the U.S. Postal Service whether you are standing in line. Or, when the cost of postage went up. Or when you learned a package sent Parcel Post could take a week or 1o days to arrive at its destination.

Yet, I’ll also bet that you didn’t know the origins of the Postal Service are written in the U.S. Constitution. Article 1, Section 8, line 7, says that the Congress has the power “to establish Post Offices and Post Roads.”

The U.S. postal system has links to Royal Mail which was established in 1516 as a means for the Kings and queens of England to send documents to their subjects. By the 18th Century, Royal Mail allowed anyone to send a letter to anyone else in England, for a fee, i.e., a stamp. A stamp in those days was not something one licked (remember those) or pulled off a sheet of waxed paper, it was a wooden block with the king’s seal that was inked and stamped on the letter.

Before the American Revolution, Royal Mail was used in the Thirteen Colonies. Once the war broke out, our Founding Fathers were reluctant to use Royal Mail because they were afraid the British would use it as a source of intelligence.

Between 1737 and 1753, Benjamin Franklin had been the Postmaster Generals for the British colonies of Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland. He instituted several reforms that enabled his operation to turn a profit.

Thomas Goddard, a printer from Massachusetts wanted a reliable way to distribute his newspapers that Royal Mail wouldn’t deliver because he was a proponent of independence. In 1774, he sent a plan to the Continental Congress which waited until after the Battle of Lexington and Concord to act. On July 26th, 1775, Benjamin Franklin was tasked with the mission of creating a postal service and is considered the first Postmaster General of the United States.

What Franklin accomplished before he was sent to France as our emissary, is remarkable. First, he instituted overnight postal delivery between New York and Philadelphia. Second, he set up standard postage fees based on how far the letter was to travel and its weight. Third, he had roads surveyed and marked from what is now Maine to Florida. Today, we know this route as U.S. Highway 1.

Fast forward to the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Franklin insisted that the words “to establish Post Offices and Post Roads” were inserted into the document. However, it was not until the Congress passed the Post Office Act of 1792 that the U.S. Post Office as we know it today was founded.

When the act was passed, the members of Congress believed that an informed electorate was vital to the success of the republic. The act established standard rates based on Franklin’s earlier work and provided subsidies for newspapers and other printed media sent through the mail. Newspapers could be sent for a penny for to a location of up to 100 miles away. Those destinations over 100 miles cost 1.5 cents. If a publisher wanted to send his publication to another publisher, it was free, i.e., the U.S. government picked up the tab. This extraordinary, subsidized rate continues today and is known as “media mail.”

So far, the Federal Government has not established “post roads” as per Article 1, Section 8, line 7. So far, that prerogative has been given to the states, but one can only wonder when the Feds will decide that the Interstate Highway System could be considered a toll road and charge us for use, over and above the Federal gas taxes.

Image is the 1847 stamp honoring Benjamin Franklin, the U.S. Post Office’s first Postmaster General.

The post Origins of the U.S. Post Office appeared first on Marc Liebman.

Far Reaching Impact of the First Militia Acts

While the two Militia Acts of 1792 were a response to the Whiskey Rebellion, they laid the foundation of what we know as the Army National Guard and Reserve we know today. Among other things, the Militia Acts of 1792 and then again in 1795, the law required the state militias to be organized in companies, battalions, regiments and divisions.

They also required members of the militia to provide their own arms and specified that each militia member had to provide his own musket, bayonet, flints (back in the late 18th Century, flintlock muskets were state-of-the-art weapons), two spare flints, a box that could contain 24 cartridges, and a knapsack. The acts also gave the power to require every male between the age of 18 and 45 to join the militia.

The primary reason for the Militia Act of 1794 was to eliminate the two-year time limit on the Militia Acts of 1792 by setting no expiration date. The Militia Act of 1795 also made the president’s power to mobilize the militia permanent.

However, there were still some issues that needed to be resolved. One was the conflict between the state governors and the president as to who could “call up” the militia and under what circumstances. This would not be fully resolved until the Militia Act of 1903. The contents of that far reaching legislation is beyond the scope of this post.

Once he took the oath of office on March 4th, 1801, Thomas Jefferson decided that the U.S. military was “too large.” Worse, its members were largely members of the Federalist Party. Jefferson was the head of the Democratic-Republicans (now known as the Democratic Party) which meant as Federalists, by and large, they did not vote for him and had the power to oppose him.

To be fair to Jefferson, all the Founding Fathers feared a large standing military that could overthrow not only the duly elected government but all the freedoms that they had fought so hard to achieve. Nowhere in any of the famed Federalist Papers nor in any correspondence by the Federalist Party leaders do they propose or plan a coup. However, Jefferson believed the Federalist officers (but not the Democratic-Republicans) were a threat to his power and programs and he wanted to purge the Army’s leadership.

Jefferson pushed Congress pass what is known as the Military Peace Establishment Act of 1802. The legislation, which has 29 clauses set requirements for pay, rations, clothing, pensions, healthcare for wounded soldiers, standardized ranks, etc.

In Article 27, Congress directed the U.S. Army to create a military academy situated at West Point to train officers, particularly, engineers. During the Revolutionary War, the Continental Army didn’t have engineers who knew how to design fortifications, build bridges, etc. Creating the academy was an attempt to rectify the situation. The first students at the United States Military Academy arrived at West Point in the spring of 1802. Some historians believe this was a sop to pacify the officer corps because the Military Establishment Peace Act proposed reducing the size of the Army from four infantry regiments to two, and two regiments of artillery to one, all supported by a small group of engineers.

Jefferson never made all the cuts. Opposition from the Federalists and the reality of having to defend U.S. Citizens pushing westward forced him to acquiesce to keep the Army at what was its current size.

West Point, on the other hand, has become one of the premier educational institutions in the country as well as one of the top military schools in the world.

Painting from the U.S. Military Academy collection of the academy circa 1828.

The post Far Reaching Impact of the First Militia Acts appeared first on Marc Liebman.

A Well Regulated Militia and the Citizen Soldier

Today, the Army and Air Force National Guard are often called out by either the state’s governor or the President of the U.S. to help in domestic emergencies. The recall can be for a natural disaster created by a hurricane, wildfire, earthquake, etc. or to help quell a riot.

The origins of this power came from President George Washington’s first State of the Union address on January 8th, 1790 as required by Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution. In it, he said, “To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace. A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies. The proper establishment of the troops which may be deemed indispensable will be entitled to mature consideration…”

At the time, the First Congress was busy creating the departments in administrative branch of the government as authorized by the Constitution. Little thought was given on how to implement Washington’s vision.

At the end of the Revolutionary War, the Continental Army’s arms were turned over to the individual states who were supposed to maintain a “well trained militia.” For the most part, they didn’t.

In 1791, the president ordered a 1,400-man U.S. force made up of the First American Regiment plus men from several state militias to put down a rebellion by the Native Americans in the Northwest Territories (Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin,). At the Battle of the Wabash River on November 4th, 1791, 918 of the men were killed, 276 were wounded.

If this fiasco wasn’t enough, the Whiskey Rebellion (see blog post – https://marcliebman.com/whiskey-tax-leads-to-rebellion/) was gathering steam. Both Native American resistance and tax protesters were direct threats to the authority of the new Federal government.

The Second Congress took action and passed the Militia Act of 1792 which had a term of only two years. At the time, the Founding Fathers did not want to create a large standing Army or Navy for fear its very being could be used to embroil the U.S. into military alliances or worse, a foreign war.

The Militia Act of 1792 is really two acts, passed six days apart. The first act of the act clarifies presidential power to by limiting it to three conditions – the president can call up the militia to counter invasions, insurrections/riots, or when the laws of the United States were opposed by “combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.”

The second act regulates how the militia will be structured and operate and gives the president the power to order uniform conscription of military age males.

The Militia Act of 1792 was modified by the Militia Act of 1795 which removed the time limit of the earlier law. What was not resolved was who had control of the individual state militias, the governor of the state or the President of the United States. During the War of 1812, the Governor of Vermont tried to recall his state militia which was called to help defend Plattsburgh, NY which was being attacked by the British. He argued that his militia could not operate outside Vermont. During the same war, members of the New York State militia refused to support the U.S. Army’s invasion of Canada, stating their only responsibility was to defend their home state.

In the two Militia Acts of 1792, the seeds of many later presidential and congressional actions were laid. Stay tuned…. Some of these will be covered in a future post.

Image is of a U.S. Citizen Soldier who will always respond to a call to arms to defend our nation.

The post A Well Regulated Militia and the Citizen Soldier appeared first on Marc Liebman.

“I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing …”

It’s 1786, two years after independence was won and in the western part of the Massachusetts, farmers scratched out a living. Barter was the economic model. Farmers would trade farm products for things they needed. If the harvest was bad, stores gave them credit which would be paid the following year.

Merchants in Boston faced a problem of their own. Their European suppliers now wanted payment in payment in English pounds, French livres, Dutch Guilders or Spanish dollars because the Continental dollar was, in their eyes, worthless.

The merchants passed their problem onto their customers, who unfortunately didn’t have any of the needed currencies. So, they began to seize property to sell to generate cash.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts also needed money to run its government so it levied taxes. Lots of little ones. In 1786 a man known to history as the “Plough Jogger” said to a convention in Massachusetts opposing the government’s actions:

“I’ve labored hard all my days and fared hard. I have been greatly abused, have been obliged to do more than my part in the war; been loaded with class rates, town rates, province rates, Continental rates, and all rates… been pulled and hauled by sheriffs, constables and collectors, and had my cattle sold for less than they were worth. I have been obliged to pay and nobody will pay me. I have lost a great deaf by this man and that man and t’other man, and the great men are going to get all we have, and I think it is time for us to rise and put a stop to it, and have no more courts, nor sheriffs, nor collectors, nor lawyers, and I know that we are the biggest party, let them say what they will…. We’ve come to relieve the distresses of the people. There will be no court until they have redress of their grievances.”

These were the words of a man who’d fought in the Continental Army until he was wounded at the Battle of Saratoga. His sentiments resonated throughout Western Massachusetts and another Revolutionary Veteran Daniel Shays and his followers were getting ready to seize the Springfield Arsenal in late January 1787 when they encountered a militia force under General William Shepherd. In a skirmish with Shays and his men before General Benjamin Lincoln arrived, Shepherd’s militia killed four and wounded 20.

Because the Continental Congress, now known as the Congress of the Confederation, could not raise taxes, it couldn’t help the state put down the rebellion. Lincoln, with the encouragement of Massachusetts’ Governor James Bowdoin raised enough money from merchants in Boston to field a 3,000-man army, complete with artillery and marched west to Springfield.

When Lincoln joined forces with Shepherd, they forced Shays’ followers to disburse without further bloodshed. Shays fled to the independent Republic of Vermont (see 7/20/20 post – https://marcliebman.com/the-republic-of-…tate-of-new-york/ ). Others took refuge in New Hampshire. Some went to Quebec.

The words in the title of this post were written by Thomas Jefferson in a letter on January 30th, 1787 after learning about Shays’ Rebellion. If nothing else, Shays’ effort added to the momentum building to hold the Constitutional Convention. Many historians believe that several clauses in the document – extradition of criminals, Federal assistance to quell states have the right to quell violence within their borders but can request assistance from the Federal government – stem from Shays Rebellion.

Image is the marker commemorating Shays’ Rebellion in Sheffield, MA.

The post “I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing …” appeared first on Marc Liebman.

Whiskey Tax Leads to Rebellion

Whiskey in the late 18th Century was not only a drink, but a commodity. Outside the towns along the Atlantic Coast, farmers turned surplus corn, wheat, barley, and rye into whiskey. Each family had their own recipe, some, one can assume tasted better than others and stills varied in size and production. A jug or a barrel of whiskey was something tangible that could be traded for a plow, or a horse, or whatever else the farmer needed.

In 1791, the newly ratified Constitution gave the Federal government the power to levy taxes which is a power that the Articles of Confederation did not provide. The central government assumed a $54 million liability (~$1,560,806,809 today) from the Continental Congress. This debt was a left over from the loans and bonds issued during the American Revolution to finance the fight against England. Alexander Hamilton’s 1790 Report on Public Credit convinced the Congress to find additional ways to raise money beyond the customs duties it was already collecting.

The Congress passed the Whiskey Act of 1791 to raise money because whiskey stills were in every one of the 13 states and they were plentiful. Rather than tax whiskey by the gallon, Congress levied a flat tax on each still, regardless of its size. On a cost per gallon basis, the tax cost the smaller distillers more because the tax was distributed over fewer gallons.

This new tax was unpopular from the moment it was passed. Opponents of the tax used the same rationale used in the days leading up to the American Revolution. This tax, they claimed, was “taxation without representation.” Those who resisted paying the tax claimed our Congress was doing the same thing that the British Parliament did with its Intolerable Acts of the 1760s and early 1770s.

Citizens who owned stills simply refused to pay the tax. Many tax collectors were physically threatened and several were tarred and feathered. Much of the resistance was centered in Western Pennsylvania.

President George Washington realized this was more than citizens not wanting to pay an unpopular tax. This was a challenge to the power of the central government and by 1794, Washington was faced with an open rebellion by armed citizens.

Under the powers granted him in the Militia Act of 1792, Washington called out the state militias. Combined, the governors of Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania and New Jersey put 13,000 men at the disposal of the president.

Thankfully, there was no confrontation. The rebels disbursed before the militia force arrived. However, the rebellion has an interesting legacy.

One, it reinforced the power of the central government to levy taxes. Two, the Militia Act of 1792 gave the president the power to call out the state militias in the case of a “national emergency.”
Three, peaceful protests of government laws or actions under the freedom of assembly granted in the Constitution were acceptable, but radical/violent protests were not. And last, it accelerated the process of creating political parties. One group wanted a strong Federal government. They were the Federalists.

The other, led by Thomas Jefferson, started the party called the Democratic-Republicans. They wanted a smaller, less powerful central government. In 1801, after Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans came to power, they repealed the Whiskey Tax. However, this was not the last of the wine, beer and whiskey taxes in the U.S.

Image is a replica in Colonial Williamsburg of George Washington’s Whiskey distillery that produced 11,000 gallons of whiskey in 1798!

The post Whiskey Tax Leads to Rebellion appeared first on Marc Liebman.

Immigration First Became a Political Football in 1798

The fight for independence was almost 15 years in the rear view mirror. Elections under the newly ratified Constitution and Electoral College worked as designed, and George Washington handed over the presidency to newly elected John Adams and his Vice President Thomas Jefferson.

In the early years of the country, the presidential candidate who won the most votes was sworn in as the president, the runner up became the vice president. The two men who worked together during the war for independence write and get the new Constitution ratified were now political enemies.

Adams was a Federalist who wanted a strong central government that would focus on growing the economy, a standing army and navy. The Federalists, who were the majority in Congress favored England over France because of the duplicity of the French during our fight for independence.

Jefferson was the head of the Democratic-Republican party he founded with James Madison. They favored state’s rights over that of the central government and a strict interpretation of the Constitution. They campaigned against Alexander Hamilton’s Central Bank because they thought it was “aristocratic.” Jefferson favored an expanded relationship with France.

Complicating matters for both parties was that The War of the Second Coalition was raging in Europe pitting France against England. Neither party wanted to take sides or become involved. And, the French, unhappy that the United States was remaining neutral and stopped making payments on its loans from the revolutionary, began to seize U.S. merchant ships thus starting the Quasi War of 1798 – 1800.

In 1798, the Federalists used their majority in the Fifth Congress to pass four acts that the Democratic Republicans vehemently opposed for political reasons, i.e. Jefferson wanted to become president. Their argument held that they violated the First Amendment.

The first was the Naturalization Act of 1798 which increased the time needed to become a naturalized citizen from five (set in the Naturalization Act of 1790 and then reaffirmed in the 1795 at) to 14 years. This is the first piece of legislation that required the Federal government to maintain records of those who want to immigrate along with the dates they entered the country in order to verify when the 14-year clock started. The revised law also gave the President to imprison and deport non-citizens deemed to be dangerous.

The second piece of legislation is known as the Alien Friends Act of 1798. While it had a two-year lifespan, by passing this law, the Congress made it a felony to make false statements to the Federal Government about one’s immigration status and application for citizenship.

Numbers three is the Alien Enemy Act of 1798 which made it a crime for any alien living in the U.S. to support the activities of a hostile nation. The last was the Sedition Act of 1798 which made it illegal to falsely accuse or criticize the Federal Government.

The Sedition and Alien Friends Acts were allowed to expire in 1801 and 1802. The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 is now Sections 20 – 24 of the U.S. Code. The longer residency requirements in the Naturalization Act of 1798 were changed back to their original times in the Naturalization Act of 1805. However, the power given to the president to deport or imprison aliens thought to be a threat in this law has never been rescinded.

Image is the Declaration of Intent to Immigrate filed by Albert Einstein as required by the Naturalization Act of 1805.

The post Immigration First Became a Political Football in 1798 appeared first on Marc Liebman.

Problems of Remaining Neutral in 1798

The French Revolution which began in 1789 presented a series of difficult foreign policy challenges for the United States. One of the clauses in the Franco-American 1778 Treaty of Friendship and Alliance committed the U.S. to help France defend its interests – read possessions – in the Caribbean.

In 1794, under French pressure for help fighting the British/Russian/Prussian/French Royalist alliance in the War of the Second Coalition, the U.S. passed the Neutrality Act of 1794 to reinforce Section 8 of Article One of the Constitution which gives Congress the sole power to decide to go to war. This act made it illegal for any U.S. citizen to provide the wherewithal for any military action against the territory or government of a country that is at peace with the U.S. This act has been updated/modified in 1817, 1834 and is in Title 18 of the U.S. Code of Justice. The Neutrality Act of 1794 also abrogated the 1778 Treaty of Friendship and Alliance.

Adams, who took office on March 4th, 1787, wanted to stay out of the war raging in Europe. The French responded by issuing letters of marque that enabled French privateers to seize American ships. The U.S. responded by “suspending” payments on French loans that helped fund the American Revolution.

Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans (the party that evolved into the current Democratic Party), opposed any standing Army or Navy on the grounds that it would lead the country to participate in foreign wars. They vigorously fought Naval Act of 1794 that created the modern U.S. Navy. Even though ships were authorized by the new Navy Department, the Democratic Republicans held up funding for the new ships which delayed their completion.

Adams was trying to negotiate a settlement with the French when the Democratic-Republicans leaked what we would call today classified documents about the negotiations. The effort, known as the XYZ Affair, backfired on Jefferson, who was the vice president and his allies in Congress. (See blog post – https://marcliebman.com/laffaire-de-xyz/ ).

Alarmed by the actions of French privateers, on July 7th, 1798, the Congress formally terminated the Treaty of Alliance and Friendship and the Treaty of Commerce. It also authorized the arming of merchants and the Navy to attack French naval vessels and privateers.

In France, the French Directorate was overthrown by Napoleon Bonaparte in coup on November 10th, 1799. Both he and French Foreign Minister Tallyrand were afraid that England would move into what became known as Louisiana and make it part of Canada. Sensing Spain could not protect the land from the British, Tallyrand, at the urging of Napoleon, began to take steps to finalize the transfer of the Louisiana territory to France as was supposed to occur by treaty in 1763 at the end of the Seven Years War.

With Louisiana coming back as a French possession, Tallyrand began negotiations with the U.S. to end the undeclared Quasi War. The document is called the Convention of 1800 because the U.S. did not want to sign a treaty. In Europe, the document is known as the Treaty of Mortefontaine. Its clauses provide for a commercial relationship and did not provide restitution for the ships and cargos seized by the French. U.S. merchants would have to be compensated by the U.S. Government and the last claim was not settled until 1917 when the U.S. was about to enter World War II.

The Convention of 1800 created the environment that led to the Louisiana Purchase. Still afraid that the British would move into Louisiana, Napoleon looked to the U.S. Two years later, he saw the 1803 sale of France’s Louisiana territory as a chance to generate cash and prevent British expansion in North America.

Image is the Victor Jean-Adam painting of the signing of the Convention of 1800

The post Problems of Remaining Neutral in 1798 appeared first on Marc Liebman.

For Purchase or Otherwise

In the winter of 1794, war in Europe raged. The first of the French Revolutionary Wars – the War of the First Coalition – was approaching the two-year mark. In the Caribbean and the Atlantic, U.S. merchant ships were being seized by French and British privateers as well as the navies of the major combatants – France, England, Spain, etc. Those U.S. merchant ships that ventured in the Mediterranean risked being taken by the Barbary Pirates.

For 12 years, U.S. flagged merchant ships were unprotected because the Continental Navy had been effectively disbanded when Alliance – its last frigate – was sold in August 1785. American merchant ship owners were paying the price of not having a Navy because privateers, pirates and other Navies could prey on our ships without risk.

To those who familiar with American history, the debate in Congress in the winter of 1794 was a familiar one. Discussion centered around three key points. One, the United States has enough natural resources and an energetic population so we can continue to grow our economy without trading overseas. Those who favored this isolationist philosophy pointed to the tribute being paid to the Barbary States which, by 1800, amounted to 30% of the Federal budget and to the potential cost of a standing Navy.

Argument two was the U.S. should not take sides in any European conflict. Those who supported this position pointed to George Washington’s April 22nd, 1793 Proclamation of Neutrality that stated “the duty and interest of the United States require that they should with sincerity and good faith adopt and pursue a conduct friendly and impartial policy toward the belligerent powers.”

This argument was further buttressed by the passage of the Neutrality Act of 1794 which made it a crime for U.S. citizens to “set on foot or provide or prepare the means for any military expedition or enterprise … against the territory or dominions of any foreign prince or state of whom the United States was at peace that person would be guilty of a misdemeanor.”

As it happened later in our history, world events conspired against the isolationists. Late in 1793, the Barbary Pirates seized the merchant ships Thomas, Hope, Dispatch, George, Olive Branch, Jane, President, Polly, and Minerva and were holding their crews for ransom. England was now blocking exports to its enemies and preventing imports to the U.S. from the Caribbean. The Jay Treaty, which would change England’s policy was not yet negotiated and wouldn’t be signed until November 19th, 1784.

Congress was forced to act. By a vote of 46 to 44, the House of Representatives passed the Act to Provide a Naval Armament (a.k.a. the Naval Act) of 1794 on March 27th, 1794. The bill authorized the establishment of a Navy and the procurement of “six frigates, four of 44 guns, two of 36 guns by purchase or otherwise.” Those ships, collectively known as ‘The Six Frigates’ were named, Chesapeake, Constitution, Constellation, Congress, President, and United States.

As it has so often has happened in our history, the Congress did not authorize all the funds necessary to build these ships and interfered with their construction. To placate (and gain votes to support the funding bills), the ships were built in six different shipyards in six different cities. Thankfully, four used the same basic design penned by Joshua Humphreys. United States was the first to be commissioned on July 11th, 1797, three plus years after the Naval Act was passed. President wasn’t launched until April 10th, 1800!

Image is the U.S.S. Constitution under sail in 1997 for the first time in 116 years. U.S. Navy photo.

The post For Purchase or Otherwise appeared first on Marc Liebman.