The History Book Club discussion
PRESIDENTIAL SERIES
>
10. AMERICAN SPHINX ~ CHAPTER 5 (273 - 300) (04/05/10 - 04/11/10) ~ No spoilers, please
date
newest »
newest »
I guess the embargo really didn't work, and the price, the economy got worse. I'm reminded of the Volstead Act. Booze still came into the U.S. but it was now illegal. For Jefferson, ships still got through. Britain's loss of American goods now came from Latin and South America.I think TJ wanted to avert war and keep U.S. ships off the waters since U.S. ships were being stopped and the sailors being impressed.
Mod
I can see that he wanted to avert the problems but to me it seemed as if he was trying to curtail the number of fatal car accidents by prohibiting everyone from driving at all. And how was he going to get back 6,000 US Citizens who had been impressed?
I wonder what happened to these folks. I tried to think what other things could have been done and I have to admit he was in a tough position if he solely wanted to avoid war. I can understand and actually do sympathize where he was coming from. In some ways, this alternative was a thoughtful decision given the other options. What other alternatives did he really have aside from confrontation or doing what he did?
Mod
One is called The Jefferson Encyclopedia and after reading this I am even more sympathetic towards Jefferson and the situation he found himself in as well as the country. This write-up is quite excellent:
http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/...
The next one is a podcast:
Jefferson's Embargo at 200
Jim Sofka speaking at Monticello's Jefferson Library Author and lecturer, Jim Sofka re-examines one of the most controversial—and unusual—of American foreign policies, the Embargo Act. With the stroke of a pen on December 22, 1807, President Jefferson suspended all American trade and shipping with Europe and ordered all American vessels to vacate the Atlantic Ocean. The policy lasted through the remainder of Jefferson’s Presidency, left American vessels and goods idling and rotting in port, and led his popularity to plummet. The stakes were high: the Embargo is frequently interpreted as the first salvo of the conflict with Britain that would culminate in the War of 1812. Scholars have been sharply divided in their interpretations of the policy, and the Embargo has been praised as “a magnificent test of a new theory of international law” and castigated as an ill-conceived “prologue to war.”
These were Monticello podcasts as well and there were some other great subjects in addition to the Embargo one. Here is the link to the one above and the others:
http://www.monticello.org/podcasts/ic...
(Originally presented at the ICJS on November 27, 2007. Added to Monticello Podcasts on December 15, 2007. Approx. 1 hour)
The TJE is a great resource not just for the fact that I worked on that project ;-)
Mod
Were you around in 2007 when Sofka spoke at the Jefferson Library?
All, here is a link to some other wonderful Monticello podcasts about Jefferson:
http://www.monticello.org/podcasts/in...
I was at the JL in 2007. We also have fellows from around the world come do research, and I vaguely remember one fellow whose project was the embargo. He ran down the options or lack of them in his talk arguing that the embargo did fail to avert war, it seemed to be the best one at the time.
Mod
That must have been an exciting project and place to be. The podcasts look great for all of those folks who are reading Sphinx.
Joseph J. Ellis
Indeed. I know the webmaster he has worked hard to make them happen. Good stuff and I hope our members enjoy.
I couldn't image trying to "get around" the largest navy and probably the largest trader in the world. What were we thinking? (ha-ha). In war, there is luck and we were lucky that Napoleon was creating havoc in Europe. Not so lucky for the Europeans of course.
Mod
Yes, the British and the French kept each other busy...thank God but England was still angry at having lost its colonies...still holding a grudge I believe.
Bentley wrote: "I have no idea. Maybe in those days the world looked bigger to these folks and they felt that they could hide and scoot "around them" (the Brits that is). Yes, the British and the French kept e..."
You raised an interesting point. the world probably was big in their minds. Today, it is so small with technology. It could be a mind-set.
A what if out there: would an embargo work in today's world compared to TJ's time? We had Cuba in 1962.
Mod
But I wonder about embargos in this day and age and if they hurt more the person or country which enacts them unless it is a unilateral thing like global sanctions etc. But I am not an authority on embargos so I am not sure whether their effect would be that instrumental...I imagine it could be at some level but how do you enforce it.
Virginia wrote: "TJ's mentor, George Wythe, would use cold water and shower his entire body, so TJ at least only 'froze' one part!Adams and TJ were so different; I agree that TJ would have loved our techno age, w..."
In the book below about Ben Franklin, there are frequent references to his taking baths outside in cold weather. I don't really understand why but I think the belief was the cold strengthened one's constitution, and in turn, his immunity.
Regardless, there seemed to be some semblance of this type of bathing going on in the times.
The First American: The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin
Mod
H.W. BrandsHi Sera,
Remember we add the book cover, then the photo which you did (thank you) and then always the author's link which provides the name. If the cover is not available the link is fine with the words - no cover available. Many times the photo is not available and in those cases, it is the book cover and then the author's link.
Regarding your comment, there are groups called the Polar Bears who go for a swim in the ocean during Winter...same philosophy I guess. Who knows maybe it does strengthen your immunity and constitution.
Great comment and analogy to another founding father. I wonder though why they were not inclined to bathing their whole body versus just their feet. Although the Franklin example talks about bathing outside in cold weather.
Burrrrrrrr...I feel cold already talking about it.
Bentley
Some interesting articles today on the same subject - maybe there is some truth in this:
http://www.healthcentral.com/cold-flu...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_sho...
Bentley wrote: "If you have read this book and if you can remember...why was Priestly so defining for both men and secondly, how did Priestly play a role in the reconciliation of both men? ..."Well, I just finished "The Invention of Air: A Story Of Science, Faith, Revolution, and The Birth Of America" by Steven R. Johnson, the book in which we read that Joseph Priestly was mentioned 52 times in the letters that Thomas Jefferson and John Adams wrote each other late in their lives. As usual (I read his "The Ghost Map" last year and LOVED it), Steven Johnson has written a wonderful and complex book .. a great read. Having just put the book down, these are my thoughts about Priestly's relationship with Thomas Jefferson.
During the period of the Enlightenment, paradign shifts took place throughout a number of disciplines. British scientist, theologian and political theorist, Joseph Priestly, was a transformative figure in four of these disciplines: chemistry, electricity, politics and faith.
He also played an important role in the lives of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. A polymath intellectual, he was very much in harmony with Franklin and Jefferson in particular, and was a great friend to both. He was the first scientist to seek and be granted exile in the United States after being persecuted for his religious and political beliefs at home.
A believer in the unfettered exchange of information and ideas, a tolerant stoic and a rationalist utterly opposed to religious fundamentalism, he offered valuable advice and counsel to the founders of the United States of America during the early years of their new republic.
In 1782 he published "The Corruptions of Christianity" in which he attempted to isolate every instance of magic and mysticism in Christianity, including the existence of the Holy Ghost, the divinity of Christ, the immateriality of the soul, the trinity, the deification of saints and relics, etc. The stated goal of his book was to restore the Christian faith to the original values of Jesus himself, and of the "primitive" fathers who worshiped a single god and had no room for supernatural explanations of life.
It is Priestly's book, "The Corruptions of Christianity," that Jefferson credits with giving him enough philosophical support to call himself a Christian again. He wrote John Adams that he had read Priestly's writings over and over again and "I rest on them ... as the basis of my own faith." Said Jefferson "I am a Christian in the only sense he (Jesus) wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others...."
When he wrote his own Jeffersonian Bible, he selectively edited out all references to Jesus' divinity as well as references to mystical, miraculous and supernatural elements... following the blueprint that Joseph Priestly had first drawn up in "The Corruptions."
Priestly's book resonated with Jefferson so profoundly for another reason... it envisioned a world view similar to that of Jefferson's own ... most notably in what Jefferson called the "ancient Whig principles" of the original Anglo-Saxon culture pre-1066. Joseph Ellis describes this "pristine past" world view in "American Sphinx," as "a long lost time and place where men had lived together in perfect harmony without coercive laws or predatory rulers." In Johnson's words, Jefferson saw Priestly's book as "pointing the way to an equivalently pristine origin where he could 'rest his faith' without compromise... it was the kind of story Jefferson liked to hear."
As we recall from "American Sphinx," Jefferson's vision was to create anew this "pristine past" in the newly-born country of the United States. He believed that America would become the refuge of those original Anglo-Saxon values. Everything that he did, thought, wrote and said springs from this utopian vision. It is evident that Thomas Jefferson and Joseph Priestsly were kindred spirits; they shared the same distinctive world view.
Having fled persecution in England and arrived in the United States, Priestly became embroiled in the battle between the Federalists and the Republicans. His sympathies lay with the Republicans; he was opposed to the authoritarian leanings of the Federalists. He made known his opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts signed by John Adams and thus was in clear violation of the Acts and in danger of being jailed. His friendship with Jefferson deepened at this time and flourished during and after the years of Jefferson's presidency. The postinaugural correspondence between the two men would play an important role in the later 13-year final correspondence between Jefferson and Adams. Sharing Jeffersion's Enlightenment views on education, Priestly would go on to help plan the curriculum for the university which became a key part of Jefferson's intellectual legacy.
Ten years after Priestly's death, soon after Jefferson and Adams had begun their legendary final correspondence, Jefferson's postinaugural letters to Priestly were published. They then fell into the hands of John Adams. According to Joseph Ellis, this was "the defining moment in their correspondence" at which it "became an argument between the competing versions of the revolutionary legacy." Their correspondence evolved into a conversation in which nearly all of Adams' letters pivoted off specific quotes from Jefferson's original exchange with Priestly.
These legendary letters have come to be regarded by many historians as "the greatest correspondence between prominent statesmen in all of American history."
A note: Despite the litany of injuries Adams felt had been dealt him in the Jefferson/Priestly letters, Adams would write of Priestly "This great, excellent and extraordinary Man, whom I sincerely loved, esteemed and respected was really a Phenomeon: a Comet in the System, like Voltaire."
What the three men shared, along with other Enlightenment thinkers of the age, was the fundamental belief that the world would change, improve and progress, if the light of reason were allowed to shine upon it.
HTH
Steven Johnson
Mod
Great connection...and it brings everything together. Fabulous.
Hear, hear,great post, Marje. TJ literally cut the supernatural parts and pasted in his sermons for his bible. Good tie in about the Saxons. At first glance, TJ seemed to want a utopia, but all his talk of idealism, he might have realized as a politician that it would not happen. Didn't stop him from trying at least in his head and at Monticello.
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
The Invention of Air (other topics)The First American: The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin (other topics)
The First American: The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin (other topics)
American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson (other topics)
The Invention of Air (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Steven Johnson (other topics)H.W. Brands (other topics)
H.W. Brands (other topics)
Joseph J. Ellis (other topics)
Steven Johnson (other topics)
More...
War between France and Great Britain.
The renewed fighting between Great Britain and France (1803) severely tested American neutrality. The situation became even more difficult when the British navy under Lord Nelson defeated the French fleet at the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805 and gained control of the seas.
American merchants had been profiting from the war by shipping sugar and coffee brought from French and Spanish colonies in the Caribbean to Europe.
Great Britain protested because the prices it was getting for its West Indies products were declining. Noting that French ports visited by neutral U.S. merchant ships (to preserve the French merchant marine from Great Britain) would have been closed to the United States in peacetime (allowing only French deliveries), Britain invoked the Rule of 1756, stating that such ports should not be open during war to neutral replacements.
American traders got around the rule by taking French and Spanish products to American ports, unloading them, and then reloading them for European ports as “American” exports.
By 1805, Britain had had enough of such deceptions, and through a series of trade decrees began a blockade of French-controlled European ports.
The British as well as the French ignored U.S. neutrality claims and seized American merchant ships. Great Britain resumed the policy of impressment, taking alleged British navy deserters off American vessels and returning them to British service.
The life of an American sailor was hard but nothing like that in the Royal Navy with its harsh discipline and low pay. Many British deserters had become American citizens, but this did not stop British officials from impressing them, nor did the British hesitate in taking U.S.-born citizens, who could even prove their American birth. Between 1807 and 1812, the Royal Navy impressed some six thousand American seamen.
In June 1807, the British warship Leopard attacked the Chesapeake, an American navy frigate, and four alleged deserters were removed. Prior impressment actions had involved merchant ships; this one, however, involved a U.S. navy ship. Amid the public's cry for war against Britain, Jefferson turned to economic pressure to resolve the crisis.
The Embargo Act.
Jefferson's solution to the problems with Great Britain and France was to deny both countries American goods. In December 1807, Congress passed the Embargo Act, which stopped exports and prohibited the departure of merchant ships for foreign ports.
The act also effectively ended imports because foreign ships would not bring products to the United States if they had to leave without cargo. The British got around the Embargo Act by developing trade connections in South America, while in the United States, thousands of sailors were thrown out of work, merchants declared bankruptcy, and southern and western farmers had no outlet for their crops.
At the time, the Embargo Act was generally viewed as a failure. While the economic costs to Americans were high, trade did continue. Enforcement was lax, and American captains used a loophole in the law to claim that they had legally sailed into European ports only after being “blown off course” by adverse winds; there were a suspiciously great many instances of bad weather between 1807 and 1809.
The Embargo Act did, however, result in an increase in manufacturing. The number of cotton mills in the United States, for example, increased from fifteen to eighty-seven in just two years, and other domestic industries took root to replace foreign imports.
The mood of the country in 1808 encouraged Jefferson not to seek a third term. Despite the nation's unhappiness over the embargo, Republican James Madison was elected president and the Republicans kept control of both houses of Congress. The Embargo Act was repealed on March 1, 1809, just before Madison took office.
Madison and neutrality.
Madison was just as committed as Jefferson to staying out of the European war, and he continued to rely on economic pressure.
The Non-Intercourse Act of 1809 replaced the Embargo Act. The logic behind the law was that the United States would open its ports to all nations except Britain and France.
If either of those two nations stopped violating American neutrality rights, the United States would reestablish commercial ties. Britain and France ignored the Non-Intercourse Act, and other seafaring nations had no desire to confront the Royal Navy.
Many American merchants simply found ways to evade the law. Congress tried another tack in May 1810 with Macon's Bill No. 2. This time, the United States would trade with Britain and France, in spite of their neutrality violations. Should one of them end their restrictions on neutral shipping, the United States would stop trading with the other. A cynical Napoleon responded by promising to end French restrictions, and Congress proclaimed non-intercourse against Britain in February 1811, but France continued to seize American ships.
Problems in the west.
While Madison and Congress grappled with the neutrality issue, Native Americans renewed their objections to American settlement north of the Ohio River. Tribes were still being coerced into giving away or selling their land. Through the Treaty of Fort Wayne (1809), the Delaware and Miami gave up much of the central and western parts of the new Indiana Territory for only ten thousand dollars.
Two Shawnee leaders, Tecumseh, a brilliant chief, and his half-brother Tenskwatawa, known as the Prophet, took a stand against further encroachment by settlers. While Tecumseh did receive aid from the British in Canada, he was less their pawn than a man who clearly saw what alcoholism, disease, and loss of land were doing to his people. Tenskwatawa was a recovered alcoholic who urged Indians to reaffirm their traditional values and culture.
William Henry Harrison, the governor of the Indiana Territory, perceived in Tecumseh and the Prophet a dangerous combination of military and religious appeal.
In September 1811, Harrison set out with about one thousand men to attack Tecumseh's stronghold at Prophetstown on the Tippecanoe River. The Shawnee struck first, but Harrison was able to beat them back and claim a major victory. Tecumseh was away from the village trying to recruit tribes to join the confederacy, and Tenskwatawa fled. The Battle of Tippecanoe, as Harrison preferred to call the engagement, clearly did not resolve the conflict with the Indians on the frontier. It did, however, intensify anti-British feeling in the Northwest.
Western senators and congressmen urged a more aggressive policy against Great Britain. Henry Clay of Kentucky became the leader of a faction in Congress called the War Hawks, which demanded an invasion of Canada and the expulsion of Spain from Florida. The War Hawks feared that the British in Canada were once again intriguing with the Indians, a concern that had provoked Harrison's move against Tecumseh.
Voting for war.
On June 1, 1812, President Madison sent a war message to Congress. Frustrated at the failure of the neutrality measures and pressured by the War Hawks, Madison felt he had no choice.
Ironically, Great Britain repealed its Orders in Council on June 23, 1812, relaxing its trade restrictions in the face of an economic depression.
American leaders ignored this belated attempt at compromise, however. Few Republicans wanted war, but long-standing grievances and insults could no longer be tolerated. Madison's war message cited impressment, violation of neutral rights, Indian aggression, and British meddling in American trade as causes for war.
The vote proceeded along party lines, the majority of Republicans voting for war and a Federalist minority voting against it. A somewhat divided United States thus fought Great Britain for a second time.
Source: Cliff Notes site:
Read more: http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guid...
Can you imagine today if some foreign country decided to impress 6,000 US citizens into its armed forces?