U.S. DIPLOMATIC HISTORY

JEFFERSONIAN-GBANDAFTERWITHLECTURE.pptx

Home >History homework help >U.S. DIPLOMATIC HISTORY

JEFFERSONIAN POLICY THE EARLY 1800S: WAR WITH GREAT BRITAIN AND AFTER

JAMES R. CORCORAN, Ph.D.

Page 1: The next three slides (#2-#4) serve as a review and are reinforced by your assigned readings. This phase in American diplomatic history, which we are entering in this les son, covers the period of the new nation of America, after its birth, through its consolidation and establishment of control over its sovereignty (again: territorial integrity, unity, and independence), through the war of 1812 with Great Britain and beyond (roughly 1800-the 1830s). After a revolution, the winning side, after it has fought and won the country, is faced with the question of “how are we going to run this new country”. This is one of the most critical phases of nation building. Parallels can be drawn with examples from your own experience. If we assume that the driving out of the Taliban and installation of the Karzai government and the toppling of Saddam and the installation of the new coalition government are “revolutions”; then you see what I mean that this is a most vulnerable phase of a new revolutionary government’s development. Other examples can be found in the current “Arab Spring” in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Qatar, and beginning now even in Jordan. The revolution in Syria is not yet completed so it is too early to tell. Important is that Presidents Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, John Quincy Adams (John's son; extremely well-qualified for the position), Andrew Jackson, and Van Buren are all breaking new ground because the U.S. is a new nation still being born, and must still spread its wings to expand to the Pacific coast (next lesson). Here, you may wonder: “why is U.S. diplomatic history compartmented by presidential terms?”. One reason is that the president sets the policies and actions for his term in accordance with powers granted to him by the constitution of the United States of America. Another reason is that record keeping is done according to presidential terms; a new record begins with the inauguration of the new president. That is important for American diplomacy, and the State Department’s historical archives are carried under each president’s period in office. Had this question occurred to you?

JEFFERSONIAN POLICY THE EARLY 1800S: WAR WITH GREAT BRITAIN AND AFTER

JEFFERSON - AMBASSADOR, SECRETARY OF STATE, PRESIDENT

THE SHORES OF TRIPOLI

TROUBLES WITH BRITAIN

Page 2: Again, review from the previous lesson, moving to the installation of Thomas Jefferson as the President in 1800, we are in the transitional period following John Adams’ presidency 1797-1800. Jefferson’s win brings to an end the “Federalist presidencies” of GW and JA; TJ is a “Democrat-Republican” (from the political parties in your last lesson), and our favorite rabble-rouser, Aaron Burr is his Vice .

We may be independent of the “mother country” be we’re not free of her; she still plays big on our national scene. Recall that TJ opposes the English in principle and leans toward France.

TROUBLES WITH BRITAIN

JEFFERSON MINISTER TO FRANCE, HEADS NEW STATE DEPARTMENT

THE GREAT FRENCH REVOLUTION – JULY 1789

FRANCE DECLARES WAR ON BRITAIN – 1 FEB 1793 (22 YEAR WAR)

GEORGE WASHINGTON PROCLAMATION OF NEUTRALITY – 22 APRIL 1793

AND

THE JAY TREATY – 19 NOVEMBER 1794 +

THE PINCKNEY TREATIES – 27 OCTOBER 1795 – SPANISH, MISSISSIPPI + NEW ORLEANS

THE US FREED ITS OWN SOIL FROM FOREIGN DOMINATION BY JAY & PICKNEY

Page 3: More review . After returning from Paris as the U.S. “Ambassador”, logically TJ is appointed the very first U.S. SecState; in rank the first among all the president’s cabinet members to the present day. As the French Revolution unfolds, the new regime declares war on GB. GW (sly fox) declares neutrality. Troubles with GB, so John Jay as special envoy, to London, attained a controversial, but successful treaty. Thomas Pinckney, envoy (special ambassador) to Spain concluded a treaty which opened the Mississippi River and brought Amerindians on Spanish territory under control. By these two treaties, the new United States was able to bring its own territory under its own control (territorial integrity).

FRICTION WITH FRANCE – 1789-1800

JOHN ADAMS (FEDERALIST) PRESIDENT – 1797

TALLEYRAND & THE “XYZ” AFFAIR

LOGAN ACT – 1799

THE CONVENTION OF 1800 – (NAPOLEON) – ENDS “FOREVER” TREATIES

THE US SHAKES OFF THE LAST DIPLOMATIC SHACKLES WITH EUROPE

Page 4: More review. leading up to Jefferson assuming the presidency. Recall that America was actually in sporadic battles with France. The French Minister of Foreign Relations, Talleyrand, tried to bribe American treaty makers in what became known as the “X.Y.Z.” affair named for the three secret operatives who attempted to bribe/coerce the three Americans in Paris. This episode is important because it led Congress to void existing treaties with France; thereby freeing America of treaty commitments to that nation, and, indeed any treaty commitments to Europe. In effect, we became a “free” nation (from the standpoint of “self-determination”; that is the independence part of sovereignty to go along with unity and territorial integrity). Here again, examples of how diplomacy, astutely enacted, can end/prevent war.

TROUBLES WITH BRITAIN (CONTINUED)

-- SO, DIPLOMACY MUST BE BACKED BY FORCE

AND

DIPLOMACY SHOULD BE OF A “WIN-WIN” NATURE

Page 5: The lessons learned by the new nation are above. REFLECT on SecState James Baker’s Coercive Diplomacy (as I label it) in the lead-up to Desert Shield/Desert Storm (1990-1991, almost 200 years after the events discussed here) and after, as covered by my PowerPoints in lesson 2; good examples of application of the principles above. Please embed these two principles into your consciousness, forever .

You may ask “Dr. Jim, how were the Jay and Pinckney treaties and the “XYZ” affair “win-win”s for the British, Spanish, and French?” Good question, I’m glad that you asked (I would give you XTRA CREDIT for asking if this were a FTF (face-to-face) class ). I love trouble-making questions. Sometimes one makes me look ignorant (“stupid” is you can’t understand something, “ignorant” is you don’t know something), yes, but 1) No one knows everything, 2) I learn more by having to find the answer to the question . This answer? The three European nations are now left free of costly involvement far on the other side of the Atlantic ocean and thereby are more able to marshal their resources in competition (war) with their nearby European competitors (warring states); one reason. Another is that those three European nations found that trade became easier with the new world because of the lifting of restrictions (or in the case of France, the freeing of restrictions) wrapped up in the treaties. Also, country-to-country relations stood to be more amicable after these various issues were settled. Isn’t that one of the objectives of diplomacy, amicable country-to-country relations?

JEFFERSON & THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE THOMAS JEFFERSON (PRESIDENT – MARCH 1801) – POLICY VIEWS

FRENCH OVER THE BRITS,

OPPOSED EUROPEAN INVOLVEMENTS,

FAVORED A STRONG ECONOMY,

REDUCE THE NATIONAL DEBT,

A STRONG AGRAIANIST (ANTI-WAR SHIPS),

A VIGOROUS OPPONENT OF WAR;

THAT’S JEFFERSON!!!

THEN WHAT HAPPENED???

Page 6: The author (“framer”, or “drafter”) of the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America; former “Ambassador” to France, and former SecState, now gets to put all of his views, ideas, and experience into action. It is one thing to be an observer/critic of the President of the United States (POTUS in today’s abbreviated world) and another thing to actually be the man (woman some day?) in the position and having to keep the ship of state (America) moving forward, on the right course, right side up (otherwise, things can get very soggy ). On this slide I give you a sketch of a portion of TJ’s worldview. As far as “what’s up there?”, he was a Deist (one whose belief in God is based on reason and rational understanding of nature thus, not needing religion: a set of beliefs, practices, and organization based on the existence of a supernatural power/powers, and dealing with the holy or sacred; what is commonly termed [inaccurately] “organized” religion). The idea was that Deists did not need some church group directing their worship activities or controlling their lives; they were free to go directly to God without going through some middleman (after all, ALL church leaders are, in the end, only men). Our founders who were Deists: Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Hamilton, Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen, and many others. As for TJ’s what’s below [nature], he loved his beautiful country. Among other things he was a surveyor and his writings include glorious descriptions of his native Virginia. He saw God in nature, in the countryside, forests, rivers, hills and mountains. Now, he is our new president. He was plantation farmer; with African slaves to do all the work. So, as you see above, he was against spending the public’s $$ on war ships. Do note that after Jefferson’s wife died, and he promised her on her death bed that he would not remarry, he mated with his AFAM house servant (slave), Sally Hemmings and fathered some seven children by her; the AFAM Hemmings family of Philadelphia today reveals genetic heritage form TJ through DNA testing. You can find details at http://www.history.com/topics/sally-hemings/videos?mkwid=s4B7RVYEY_pcrid_7908631278_pkw_heming%20sally_pmt_b&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=heming%20sally&utm_campaign=G_Historical+Figures#who-was-sally-hemmings . Our new president.

BARBARY PIRATES

Bailey, 1980, 64

Page 8: The Barbary Wars were discussed in slide 18, Week 3 in some detail (go back and refresh). Here it is important that president Jefferson had to deal with that issue, left over from the previous (Washington and Adams) administrations. The difference was that TJ refused to pay ransom. The Pasha of Tripoli declared war on the U.S. Without an authorization of war by Congress, TJ dispatched the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marines who then embarked on the First Barbary War (1801-1805). U.S. Navy Lieutenant Stephen Decatur and U.S. Marine Corps Lieutenant Presley O’Bannon, at different periods of that war, distinguished themselves with gallant action and forced Tripoli to come to terms with the new nation of America resulting in a peace treaty; another case of war (A violent clash of interests between two or more large, organized, entities involving the use of military force) being waged successfully thereby returning the situation to the practice of diplomacy (in this case a peace treaty). Our new president excelled as a real wartime leader (he won the war). Your professor, Dr. Jim, much loves SUCCESSFUL wars . His experience in America’s War in Vietnam; which was lost in Washington D.C. and NOT on the battlefield (we’ll cover that in lesson 7, I was a field artillery captain in the 6th battalion, 15th Field Artillery (105 mm Howitzer, Towed), in the U.S. Army 1st Infantry Division during the 1967 battles and the 1968 TET offensive; the high point of that war; and yet the outcome in Paris was the failure of the U.S. to retain the sovereignty of the Republic of (South) Vietnam). Americans died/wounded in vain, 58,209 killed, 153,303 were wounded/maimed. BUT, my Cold War (which I engaged in from 1955 to 1991) was a success ; as was America’s first Gulf War, Desert Storm. We must study and learn from our failures, but model ourselves after our successes.

President Thomas Jefferson was a successful wartime leader.

NAPOLEON WAIVERS ON LOUISIANA – JEFFERSON BUYS IT! (3 CENTS/ACRE)

Page 8: On the home front, TJ was faced with a HUGE issue: the problem of the Louisiana Territories. Your assigned readings cover this important issue. Some related information:

---the territory, named after French King Louis XIV was given by France to Spain in the wake of the French loss of the Seven Years War to England (see slide 4, lesson 2 for details). Spain liked it because it was a buffer to Spanish Territory (as shown on this map),

---but, Spain couldn’t afford to protect its holdings and Napoleon Bonaparte finagled the handover of the vast area by Spain to France in 1802,

---BUT, in Nappy’s war with GB it turned out that he was in Imperial Overstretch, and could not afford (in arms and men) to hang on to the vast area of Louisiana, and negotiated with TJ for America to gain new land at a cheap price (about 3 cents and acre ; about $15 million),

---TJ anguished over whether or not he had the authority, under the U.S. Constitution (which he helped to write), to make the deal with Nappy. He went ahead and did it. His political opponents rose in protest (not because he made the deal, no, but because they were his political opponents and wanted to take over the control of America; after all nobody could really object to doubling the size of America; especially at 3 cents an acre),

---TJ prevailed, and America doubled in size.

JEFFERSON & NEUTRAL WOES – 1803-1809

TRAFALGAR (BRITS VS. FRANCE & SPAIN)

AUSTERLITZ (NAPOLEON vs. RUSSIA & AUSTRIA)

Page 9: The point here is to let you know that war was raging in Europe; BIG war.

When you go to London you can’t miss Trafalgar Square and the huge column erected to commemorate Admiral Nelson’s victory over the enemy fleet in 1805, during the Napoleonic wars.

Then, when you go to Paris, visit the Place Vendome to view the column (forged from captured Russian and Austrian cannons) commemorating Napoleon's great victory at Austerlitz (simultaneously going on during the Trafalgar time frame).

The significance for Jefferson and America? 1). America was left free to develop with little or no European interference because the Europeans were busy fighting at home. 2) Huge tectonic shifts were taking place in Europe (e.g., the disappearance of the Holy Roman Empire from the face of the earth after some 900 years as Holy Roman Emperor Francis II abdicated the throne of that empire). 3) America was hard pressed to conduct beneficial diplomacy in such tumultuous conditions.

JEFFERSON – EMBARGO ACT -- 1807

Bailey, 1980, 134

Page 10: Now “git reddy” for a long, tortuous phase of American history, which commenced with TJ’s embargo as a tool of diplomacy used to avoid being drug into Europe’s wars.

Britain and France blockaded each other and other nations along the European coast, as part and parcel of their war making. American shipping had to dodge and negotiate transit for trade with Europe. Eventually, American shipping began to receive interference culminating in the Chesapeake affair, June 22, 1807, wherein the English navy’s frigate, the “Leopard” blasted the American Frigate Chesapeake over refusal to give up British deserters. TJ pushed an embargo act through Congress.

The problem was that the embargo hurt American business by restricting activity; profits went away, and the American coast, especially New England, descended into impoverishment. The embargo did put some pressure on the British to stop interfering with American shipping, but all shipping activity dropped downward with damage to American trade.

MADISON PRESIDENT – BUT MARCH 1, 1809 – NONINTERCOURSE ACT

Bailey, 1980, 134

Page 11: The injury to American trade profits brought about by the Embargo impelled Congress to take some form of relief. The nonintercourse act went some way toward relief by allowing trade with other nations, but continuing embargo on trade with England and France until each, or both, agreed to stop interfering with American shipping and stop the Impressment (taking suspected English sailors off American ships and pressing them into service on English ships; many legitimate American sailors suffered the same fate).

MACON’S BILL – MAY 1810

Bailey, 1980, 134

Page 12: TJ was handing over the presidency to president James Madison when Congress was repealing the Embargo Act and replacing it with the Nonintercourse Act (good for one year) which allowed shipping and trade in all but French and British controlled ports; that helped ease American businesses.

Then, at the end of that one year Congress passed the Macon Bill which played England off against France by promising U.S. trade with whichever one accepted American demands of noninterference first.

GENERAL WILLLIAM H. HARRISON – TIPPECANOE – NOVEMBER 7, 1811

Bailey, 1980, 134

Page 13: Napoleonic trickery and lying eventually led America to ban trade with England only, nonimportation, effective in March, 1811, and at that point seriously leading toward war with England (the following year, 1812).

For this course you should pin down the differences between embargo, blockade, nonintercourse, and nonimportation. Why, you may ask? If you are on active duty, these categories, applied by China to Taiwan, could result in your deployment to the Taiwan Strait. Also, these terms will play out again as we examine JFK’s Cuban Missile crisis in 1962. The point here is to understand the sequence of these measures applied by the Presidents and Congress during this 5 year period of American diplomatic history leading into war.

“WARHAWKS” (HENRY CLAY / ANDY JACKSON +) – COONSKIN CONGRESSMEN

Page 14: As we move closer to war it is necessary to be aware that there were cliques in America who were Warhawks. Men who were fervent about America's honor and prestige, and advocated WAR instead of diplomacy as a way of achieving America’s National Security Objectives (remember those? ). In our history we seem to have always had these folks, as we still have today. One difference between then and now is that Henry Clay and Andy Jackson were men who had tasted war and, importantly, men who were willing to go to the war they started. These were generally westerners and or southerners; injun fighters, they wore coonskin hats (Danny Boone type ), much more inclined toward bellicosity (war making) then sedentary East Coasters. The result….

CONGRESS 90 DAY EMBARGO ACT, 1812

Bailey, 1980, 134

Page 15: Yup, WAR!! President Madison delivered his call for war to the Congress on June 1, 1812; refer to your Merrill readings, assigned for this lesson, pp. 97-99.

Study that Presidential document; very important!!

Recall that according to Article 1, Section 8, of our Constitution, ONLY Congress can declare war for the U.S. of A. Our founders put that in there to prevent ONE MAN or a SMALL GROUP OF MEN bringing our country to war.

The idea was to have the PEOPLES’ representatives thoroughly scrub/debate/argue the reasons for going to war before they sent those who elected them off to risk life and limb in battle, while at the same time prevent draining the treasury dry (wars are very expensive and the best return you can hope for, for your $$, is victory; war is not an investment which can bring value with the passing of time, such as buildings/highways/dams/bridges/power plants, etc.).

In a no-notice attack, or real imminent threat, yes, the Commander-in-Chief has the authority to immediately respond to protect the people and the nation, yes. BUT, before going to war, only the Congress has the right to declare the nation “at war” (hence, Korea was labeled a “Police Action”, Vietnam “a Counterinsurgency Operation”, OPERATION Enduring Freedom, OPERATION Iraqi freedom, and so on; December 8, 1941 is the last time Congress did its job, in this respect, and declared the nation at war).

When Congress “authorizes” the President to take action as he deems necessary, Congress is giving up its responsibility to We, the people.

So,…

MADISON WAR MESSAGE

Bailey, 1980, 140

Page 16: The decision to go to war was hotly debated in Congress, as it should always be. In truth, the decision to go to war is, arguably, the most important decision a nation can make. Carl von Clausewitz, the greatest of Western strategists (Sunzi was the great Eastern strategist) tells us, in his Vom Krieg (On War):

“ …war should never be thought of as something autonomous but always as an instrument of policy….[it is necessary to see] how wars must vary with the nature of their motives and of the situations which give rise to them…. The first, the most far-reaching act of judgment that the statesman and commander have to make is to establish by that test [the two sentences above] the kind of war upon which they are embarking; neither mistaking it for, nor trying to turn it into, something that is alien to its nature. This is the first of all strategic questions and the most comprehensive.” Howard & Paret, eds./trans., Carl von Clausewitz: On War, New Jersey: Princeton University press, 1976, 88-89.

Apply this passage to Operation Iraqi Freedom, the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. Did our initiation of that war comply with Clausewitz’s admonition as seen above?

In the chart here, you see that overseas trade States (the first eight) voted heavily against war because war endangered their trade activities and profit (see slide # 10 above).

The remainder of the States (Southern and Western) voted predominantly in favor of war for the reasons I put forth in slide # 14 above.

The point is that the arguments for and against war were thoroughly contended on the floor of the U.S. Congress.

The nation made the decision to go to war.

WHY DID THE US FIGHT ENGLAND vice FRANCE?

BRITS NEARER HOME,

BRITS HAD KILLED SOME AMERICANS,

FRANCE HAD HELPED AMERICA IN REVOLT vs. BRITAIN,

US COULDN’T GO TO FRANCE TO FIGHT,

ENGLISH SHIPS SEEMED EASY PREY,

CANADA COULD BE TAKEN BY US MILITA

AND

KING GEORGE III, OF ENGLAND, WENT COMPLETELY INSANE (PORPHYRIA)

Page 17: the question is often raised by historians as to why the U.S. went to war with just England when, in fact, both France and England were equally interfering with American shipping.

The British were right on America’s doorstep in Canada and off the Atlantic coast; the French were all the way on the other side of the Atlantic.

We still owed France a debt of gratitude for its assistance during our war for independence.

England was greatly weakened by its leader’s chronic illness (porphyria).

You may ask: Dr. Jim, how come these reasons did not appear in Presidential or Congressional documents? GOOD question my dear student. These reasons are conjured out of the situation at that time (ALL history must be analyzed in relation to the circumstances at that time; this is the part of the definition of history which reads “…exploration of their [events] causes….”). Here’s the guiding principle: there are always good reasons for actions taken; the STATED reasons, and the REAL reasons. Just consider when your spouse/partner drills you with “Why in the hell did you do THAT?” How about it? STATED reasons? REAL reasons? 

THE TRUCE OF GHENT & AFTER, 1812-1818

JACKSON & NEW ORLEANS – 1815—US NOW SOVEREIGN

Page 18: This is not a U.S. military history course, so we don’t have to track the course of the war of 1812.

It was really a disastrous war for America, BUT, the payoff was quite beneficial.

America really didn’t get up for this war. Leadership was thin, logistics, training, maneuver, etc. were all deficient, at all levels of war (strategic, operational, tactical; refer lesson I, definitions).

Proof of America’s disability was the British invasion and occupation of our capital, Washington, District of Columbia (not a State, but a Federally administered “district”, separate from States rights). The invaders burned the Presidential Mansion and the Capitol Building (post-war repair of the Presidential Mansion required using white wash to cover the flame-scared walls; hence, from 1816 to today: the White House).

It needs to be pointed out that the U.S. Navy was very successful in battles at sea with the, then, most powerful navy in the world; that was the strongpoint for America in this war.

The war was brought to close by U.S.-British treaty negotiations in the town of Ghent, in today’s Belgium. Both sides were anxious to get out of the war; mainly because it wasn’t going anywhere by the fall of 1814, and resources of both nations were being drained. While the Brits came on with strong demands, which the American delegation at first refused, eventually terms were settled on and the peace treaty of Ghent was signed by both sides on Christmas eve, 1814.

BUT, it took some 7 weeks for the news to reach Washington D.C. In the meantime Major General Andrew Jackson’s American force, in New Orleans, engaged the Brit forces in battle and won the Battle of New Orleans on January 8, 1815, after the war had been officially ended. It was a glorious victory with light American losses and heavy Brit losses. The news of the great victory of New Orleans reached Washington D.C. before the news of the Ghent treaty ending the war; so, many Americans thought (and some still think) that Jackson’s victory had forced the British to sign the peace treaty!! 

The glory for Jackson translated into his being elected president of the United States for two terms beginning in 1828.

US BRITISH BOUNDARY SETTLEMENT 1818

Bailey, 1980, 160

Page 19: In the aftermath of the war of 1812, two major outstanding issues of that time remained to be settled: the northern Louisiana Territory boundary between Canada and the U.S.; and the consolidation of U.S. Control over the Floridas.

At a conference in London, the “Convention of 1818”, the boundary as shown here was agreed on, as were U.S. fishing rights in Labrador and New Foundland over on the northeast coast; all good.

ACQUISITION OF THE FLORIDAS

Bailey, 1980, 164

Page 20: The settlement of U.S. domain over the Floridas was more complex than the Convention of 1818. But the map shown here can clarify the phases by which Florida came under U.S. control.

The story began at the end of the American Revolution, the Final Anglo-American Treaty of 1783 (see Power Point 15, Lesson 3), proceeded through the presidencies of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Monroe, and included armed invasions by the fiery Andrew Jackson, before the issue was settled by the Adams-Onis treaty of 1819, wherein Spain ceded the Florida territory to the U.S. in exchange for zeroing out $5 million of debt claims, and the U.S. pulling its claim to Texas territory as part of the Louisiana Purchase (an unsubstantiated claim because the Texas land was not part of the Louisiana Territory).

The point is that by the third decade of the 1800s, the new nation of America had consolidated its territorial integrity (remember? One of the three elements of Sovereignty. Do you recall the other two elements?) from the east coast well out into the American Midwest and South. It was called the Midwest because for Americans looking to begin expansion to the west coast, the area referred to was ‘midway” to the Pacific.

That, as part of Manifest Destiny, will be covered in your next lesson.

JEFFERSONIAN POLICY - THE EARLY 1800s: WAR WITH GREAT BRITAIN AND AFTER “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none.” -- Thomas Jefferson Inaugural Address, 4 March 1801

Page 21: Thomas Jefferson certainly had a rambunctious and successful two terms.

Madison and Monroe, up to John Quincy Adams saw a steady consolidation of the nation’s control over its new space.

As we move into the presidencies of Jackson, Van Buren, Harrison, Polk Taylor, Pierce and Buchanan up to the time of Abraham Lincoln, we’ll see that the next phase of American history makes it difficult to separate foreign from domestic issues.

The best way to govern in such circumstances is to work hard in both the foreign and the domestic arenas, and to clearly apprehend the connections between the two.

That comes next.

Terms to Know

sovereignty	the ship of state	worldview
Deist	religion	war
diplomacy	Seven Years War	Napoleon Bonaparte
Imperial Overstretch	significance	abdicated
embargo	Chesapeake affair,	nonintercourse
Impressment	Macon Bill	blockade
nonimportation	Warhawks	National Security Objectives
prophyria	bellicosity	levels of war
White House	territorial integrity

~End~