By the beginning of 1809 the EMBARGO OF 1807 had failed. Instead of compelling Great Britain and France to end their restrictions on neutral TRADE, the measure had wrecked havoc on the U. S. economy. With THOMAS JEFFERSON leaving the presidency, and JAMES MADISON replacing him, it was time to find a new solution for the diplomatic and commercial problem of neutral trade while Europe was engulfed in war. Some politicians clamored for a declaration of war against either or both belligerents. Others sought more peaceful solutions. Amid this drift there emerged the Non-Intercourse Act. This legislation repealed the embargo, closed both export and import trade with Britain and France, and prohibited warships of either power from visiting U. S. ports. The law held out the possibility of resuming normal trade with either European power if it repealed its trade restrictions. In such a circumstance, the United States would maintain non-intercourse against the other power.
The law was a farce. As JOHN RANDOLPH eloquently explained: “We have trusted our most precious interests in this leaky vessel.” Merchants could easily avoid its provisions once their ships put to sea. They could either ignore the law directly, or sail to some neutral port to exchange goods with a British (more likely) or French ship. The law also favored Great Britain, since its navy could intercept neutral shipping more effectively than the French, and since it had ports in Canada and the West Indies that it could use for provisioning. Neither the British nor the French could take the measure seriously. In 1810 Congress recognized the futility of the Non-Intercourse Act and replaced it with Macon’s Bill No. 2, which reopened trade with both the French and the British, but promised to reinstate non-intercourse with one power if the other repealed its trade restrictions.
See also FOREIGN affairs.
Further reading: Bradford Perkins, Prologue to War, 1805-1812: England and the United States (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968).
North, Frederick, Lord (1732-1792) British politician
Lord North was British chief minister during the critical years from 1770 to 1782. The actions taken by his government intensified the crises that led to the Revolutionary War (1775-83) and his weak wartime leadership contributed to Great Britain’s defeat.
North was the son of the first earl of Guilford and received an English aristocrat’s education at Eton and Trinity College, Oxford. In 1754, at the age of 22, he began his political career as a member of Parliament for Banbury. He quickly obtained influential positions as a lord of the treasury and a member of the Privy Council. In 1765 he became Chancellor of the Exchequer, and with the defeat of the Whig government in 1770, King George III made him chief minister of a new Tory government. The king preferred the Tories who were strong supporters of the monarchy, and North was the only Tory capable of forming a stable government.
Lord North was a popular and competent politician who possessed the debating and negotiating skills necessary for survival in Parliament. However, as chief minister he was often forced to support policies with which he himself did not agree. He was also frequently under sharp attack from a capable opposition that included the likes of Edmund Burke and Charles James Fox. The outbreak of war served only to emphasize his shortcomings as a leader. He lacked the initiative to take strong action and the optimism needed to withstand the pressures of wartime politics.
North failed to understand the deep dissatisfaction of the North American colonists and the degree to which colonial American political ideals had come to differ from those of Great Britain. This lack of understanding became evident during the tea crisis. North misjudged the effect of the Tea Act (1773), a measure meant to bail out the floundering East India Company. The law granted the company a monopoly in the colonial tea trade, and by lowering the price of tea, would subtly compel compliance with the remaining TowNSHEND Duty (1767). These actions were potentially damaging to colonial merchants. In protest, colonists dumped a valuable cargo of tea into Boston Harbor. North’s government retaliated for this Boston Tea Party (December 16, 1773) by passing the CoERCiVE Acts (1774) that closed the port of Boston and intervened in the operation of the Massachusetts government. These actions increased tensions between Britain and the colonists and led to the outbreak of hostilities
North also miscalculated the capacity of the colonists to wage war. Early successes by the revolutionaries distressed him. What little enthusiasm he had for the war quickly evaporated after the surrender of General John Burgoyne at Saratoga (October 17, 1777). However, he proved unable to resist the pleas of King George III and was unwilling to resign. The resulting period of weak and indecisive leadership contributed to the defeat of Britain in the war.
In 1782, after the surrender at Yorktown (October 19, 1781), North resigned and left politics briefly, but he reappeared in a coalition government with his old enemies the Whigs. In 1786 he left politics for good due to failing eyesight. Following the death of his father in 1790 he became the second earl Guilford only to die two years later. In spite of what might have been considered in other times a successful political career, his name is today primarily associated with Britain’s loss of the 13 colonies.
See also resistance movement.
Further reading: Don Cook, The Long Fuse: How England Lost the American Colonies, 1760-1785 (New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1995); Edmund S. Morgan, The Birth of the Republic, 1763-89 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992); Peter D. G. Thomas, Lord North (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1976).
—Robert Lively
World History
