IT WAS A LOSE-LOSE SITUATION.
HOW TO NEGOTIATE THE TROUBLED
WATERS OF THE ATLANTIC WORLD
IN THE NAPOLEONIC WARS.
THE ONE POSITION THAT
FEDERALISTS HAD ADVOCATED WAS
AN EFFECTIVE TACIT, OR EVEN
EXPLICIT, ALLIANCE
WITH THE BRITISH.
BUT, OF COURSE, THE
AMERICANS WANTED TO
MAINTAIN THEIR NEUTRALITY.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN MIND
THAT THE JEFFERSONIANS AS MUCH
AS THE FEDERALISTS
WERE DETERMINED TO
MAINTAIN NEUTRALITY.
IN FACT, THEY QUESTIONED THE
AUTHENTICITY OF THE FEDERALIST
NEUTRALITY, WHICH TILTED SO
MUCH TOWARD BRITAIN
AS THEY SAW IT.
THE GREAT DILEMMA OF
JEFFERSON'S ADMINISTRATION IS,
HOW CAN YOU RUN A MINIMAL
GOVERNMENT, NOT BEEF UP YOUR
MILITARY, AND YOUR NAVAL POWER,
PARTICULARLY, AND BE A CREDIBLE
THREAT OR A COUNTERWEIGHT IN
THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM.
SO, THE DILEMMA FOR JEFFERSON
IS THAT BELLIGERENT TALK, AND
THE EFFORT TO VINDICATE NEUTRAL
RIGHTS, WENT FOR HIM HAND IN
HAND WITH A FAILURE TO PREPARE.
AND THIS IS THE MOST
SEVERE INDICTMENT OF HIM.
AND IT COMES MOSTLY, OF COURSE,
FROM DIPLOMATIC HISTORIANS WHO
CAN SEE THE CONTRADICTION IN
JEFFERSON'S EFFORTS TO
CONDUCT AN AGGRESSIVE
COMMERCIAL DIPLOMACY.
THREATENING SANCTIONS,
COMMERCIAL SANCTIONS.
WHEREAS JEFFERSON'S PROPONENTS
WOULD SAY THAT IN FACT
JEFFERSON ANTICIPATED THE
WHOLE NOTION OF COMMERCIAL
SANCTIONS TODAY.
THAT COMMERCIAL WARFARE
WAS, AND THE EMBARGO WERE,
ALTERNATIVES TO WAR.
THAT IS, THAT IF YOU COULD USE
AMERICAN COMMERCIAL POWER IN
THE WORLD TRADING SYSTEM
EFFECTIVELY, BY AH
REGULATING TRADE.
DENYING IT TO PEOPLE WHO
WON'T DEAL FAVORABLY WITH YOU.
DON'T RECOGNIZE YOUR RIGHTS,
UNTIL THEY COME TO TERMS,
THEN YOU CAN AVOID WAR.
BUT, OF COURSE, THE
ULTIMATE DISASTER WAS
THAT WAR CAME NONTHELESS.
AND IT WAS CALLED MR. MADISON'S
WAR, BUT IT WAS REALLY
MR. JEFFERSON'S WAR.
