View source for The Embargo Act of 1807

The '''Embargo Act of 1807''' was a general [[embargo]] on all foreign nations enacted by the United States Congress with the intent of harming the [[United Kingdom]] and [[France]] during the [[Napoleonic Wars]].

The embargo was imposed in response to violations of United States [[neutrality (international relations)|neutrality]], in which American [[Cargo ship|merchantmen]] and their cargo were seized as [[contraband]] of war by the European navies. The British [[Royal Navy]], in particular, resorted to [[impressment]], forcing thousands of British-American seamen into service on their warships (under British law of the time, having been born British they were still [[British subject|subjects]] of the Crown). Britain and France, engaged in the Napoleonic Wars, rationalized the plunder of U.S. shipping as incidental to war and necessary for their survival. Americans saw the [[Chesapeake–Leopard affair]] as a particularly egregious example of a British violation of American neutrality. Perceived diplomatic insults and unwarranted official orders issued in support of these actions by European powers were argued by some to be grounds for a U.S. declaration of war.

President [[Thomas Jefferson]] acted with restraint as these antagonisms mounted, weighing public support for retaliation. He recommended that Congress respond with commercial warfare,  rather than with military mobilization. The Embargo Act was signed into law on December 22, 1807.  The anticipated effect of this measure—economic hardship for the belligerent nations—was expected to chasten the United Kingdom and France, and force them to end their molestation of American shipping, respect U.S. neutrality, and cease the policy of impressment. The embargo turned out to be impractical as a coercive measure, and was a failure both diplomatically and economically. As implemented, the legislation inflicted devastating burdens on the U.S. economy and the American people.

Widespread evasion of the maritime and inland trade restrictions by American merchants, as well as loopholes in the legislation, greatly reduced the impact of the embargo on the intended targets in Europe. British merchant marine appropriated the lucrative trade routes relinquished by U.S. shippers due to the embargo. Demand for English goods rose  in South America, offsetting losses suffered as a result of Non-Importation Acts. The embargo undermined national unity in the U.S., provoking bitter protests, especially in New England commercial centers. The issue vastly increased support for the Federalist Party and led to huge gains in their representation in Congress and in the electoral college in 1808. The embargo had the effect of simultaneously undermining American citizens' faith that their government could execute its own laws fairly, and strengthening the conviction among America's enemies that its republican form of government was inept and ineffectual. At the end of 15 months, the embargo was revoked on March 1, 1809, in the last days of [[Presidency of Thomas Jefferson|Jefferson's presidency]]. Tensions with Britain continued to grow, [[Origins of the War of 1812|leading]] to the [[War of 1812]].

==Background==
After the short truce in 1802–1803 the European wars resumed and continued until the defeat of Napoleon in 1814. The war caused American relations with both Britain and France to deteriorate rapidly. There was grave risk of war with one or the other. With Britain supreme on the sea, and France on the land, the war developed into a struggle of blockade and counter blockade. This commercial war peaked in 1806 and 1807. Britain's Royal Navy shut down most European harbors to American ships unless they first traded through British ports. The Royal Navy needed large numbers of sailors, and saw the U.S. merchant fleet as a haven for British sailors.

The British system of [[impressment]] humiliated and dishonored the U.S. because it was unable to protect its ships and their sailors. Forcing them into the Royal Navy increased greatly after 1803, and caused bitter anger in the United States.

On June 21, 1807 the American warship USS ''Chesapeake'' was [[Chesapeake–Leopard affair|attacked and boarded on the high seas]] off the coast of Norfolk, VA by the British warship HMS Leopard. Three Americans were dead and 18 wounded; the British impressed four seamen with American papers as alleged deserters. The outraged nation demanded action;  President Jefferson ordered all British ships out of American waters.

==Initial legislation==
Passed on December 22, 1807, the Act:
* laid an embargo on all ships and vessels under U.S. jurisdiction,
* prevented all ships and vessels from obtaining clearance to undertake in voyages to foreign ports or places,
* allowed the President of the United States to make exceptions for ships under his immediate direction,
* authorized the President to enforce via instructions to revenue officers and the Navy,
* was not constructed to prevent the departure of any foreign ship or vessel, with or without cargo on board,
* required a bond or surety from merchant ships on a voyage between U.S. ports, and
* exempted warships from the embargo provisions.

This [[embargo|shipping embargo]] was a cumulative addition to the [[Non-importation Act]] of 1806 (2 Stat. 379), this earlier act being a "Prohibition of the Importation of certain Goods and Merchandise from the Kingdom of Great Britain"; the prohibited imported goods being defined where their chief value which consists of leather, silk, hemp or flax, tin or brass, wool, glass; in addition paper goods, nails, hats, clothing, and beer.

==Impact on U.S.==
The embargo, which lasted from December 1807 to March 1809 effectively throttled American overseas trade. All areas of the United States suffered. In commercial New England and the Middle Atlantic states, ships sat idle at the wharves, and in the agricultural areas, particularly in the South, farmers and planters could not sell their crops on the international market. For New England, and especially for the Middle Atlantic states, there was some consolation, for the scarcity of European goods meant that a definite stimulus was given to the development of American industry.

The embargo was a financial disaster for the Americans because the British were still able to export goods to America: initial loopholes overlooked smuggling by coastal vessels from Canada, whaling ships and privateers from overseas; and widespread disregard of the law meant enforcement was difficult.<ref name=malone>{{cite book |last=Malone |first=Dumas |authorlink=Dumas Malone |title=Jefferson the President: The Second Term |location=Boston |publisher=Brown-Little |year=1974 |isbn=0-316-54465-5 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/jeffersonhistime0000malo }}</ref>

A 2005 study by economic historian [[Douglas Irwin]] estimates that the embargo cost about 5 percent of America's 1807 GNP.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Irwin|first=Douglas|authorlink=Douglas Irwin|date=September 2005|title=The Welfare Cost of Autarky: Evidence from the Jeffersonian Trade Embargo, 1807–09|url=https://www.dartmouth.edu/~dirwin/docs/Embargo.pdf|doi=10.1111/j.1467-9396.2005.00527.x|journal=Review of International Economics|volume=13|issue=4|pages=631–645}}</ref>

==Case studies==
A case study of Rhode Island shows the embargo devastated shipping-related industries, wrecked existing markets, and caused an increase in opposition to the [[Democratic–Republican Party]]. [[Smuggling]] was widely endorsed by the public, who viewed the embargo as a violation of their rights. Public outcry continued, helping the Federalists regain control of the state government in 1808–09. The case is a rare example of American national foreign policy altering local patterns of political allegiance. Despite its unpopular nature, the Embargo Act did have some limited, unintended benefits to the Northeastern region especially as it drove capital and labor into New England textile and other manufacturing industries, lessening America's reliance on the British.<ref name=Strum>{{cite journal |first=Harvey |last=Strum |title=Rhode Island and the Embargo of 1807 |journal=Rhode Island History |date=May 1994 |volume=52 |issue=2 |pages=58–67 |issn=0035-4619 |url=http://www.rihs.org/assetts/files/publications/1994_May.pdf#page=28 |quote=Although the state's manufacturers benefited from the embargo, taking advantage of the increased demand for domestically produced goods (especially cotton products), and merchants with idle capital were able to move from shipping and trade into manufacturing, this industrial growth did not compensate for the considerable distress that the embargo caused.}}</ref>

In Vermont, the embargo was doomed to failure on the Lake Champlain–Richelieu River water route because of Vermont's dependence on a Canadian outlet for produce. At St. John, Lower Canada, £140,000 worth of goods smuggled by water were recorded there in 1808 – a 31% increase over 1807. Shipments of ashes (used to make soap) nearly doubled to £54,000, but lumber dropped 23% to £11,200. Manufactured goods, which had expanded to £50,000 since Jay's Treaty of 1795, fell over 20%, especially articles made near tidewater. Newspapers and manuscripts recorded more lake activity than usual, despite the theoretical reduction in shipping that should accompany an embargo.  The smuggling was not restricted to water routes, as herds were readily driven across the uncontrollable land border. Southbound commerce gained two-thirds overall, but furs dropped a third. Customs officials maintained a stance of vigorous enforcement throughout and Gallatin's Enforcement Act (1809) was a party issue. Many Vermonters preferred the embargo's exciting game of revenuers versus smugglers, bringing high profits, versus mundane, low-profit normal trade.<ref>{{cite journal |first=H. Nicholas III |last=Muller |title=Smuggling into Canada: How the Champlain Valley Defied Jefferson's Embargo |journal=Vermont History |date=Winter 1970 |volume=38 |issue=1 |pages=5–21 |url=http://vermonthistory.org/journal/misc/SmugglingIntoCanada.pdf}}</ref>

The New England merchants who evaded the embargo were imaginative, daring, and versatile in their violation of federal law. Gordinier (2001) examines how the merchants of New London, Connecticut, organized and managed the cargoes purchased and sold, and the vessels used  during the years before, during, and after the embargo. Trade routes and cargoes, both foreign and domestic, along with the vessel types, and the ways their ownership and management were organized show the merchants of southeastern Connecticut evinced versatility in the face of crisis.<ref name="Gordinier">{{cite thesis||first=Glenn Stine|last=Gordinier|title=Versatility in Crisis: The Merchants of the New London Customs District Respond to the Embargo of 1807–1809|type=PhD dissertation|publisher=U. of Connecticut|date=January 2001|id=AAI3004842|url=https://opencommons.uconn.edu/dissertations/AAI3004842/|url-access=subscription}}<!-- Extra text "DAI 2001 62(2): 739-A." not converted.  Was that a journal this was published in?--></ref>

Gordinier (2001) concludes the versatile merchants sought alternative strategies for their commerce, and to a lesser extent, for their navigation. They tried extra-legal activities, a reduction in the size of the foreign fleet, and the re-documentation of foreign trading vessels into domestic carriage. Most importantly, they sought new domestic trading partners, and took advantage of the political power of [[Jedidiah Huntington]], the Customs Collector. Huntington was an influential member of the Connecticut leadership class (called "the Standing Order");  he allowed scores of embargoed vessels to depart for foreign ports under the guise of "special permission." Old modes of sharing vessel ownership in order to share the risk proved to be hard to modify. Instead established relationships continued through the embargo crisis, in spite of numerous bankruptcies.{{r|Gordinier}}

==Enforcement efforts== 
Jefferson's Secretary of the Treasury [[Albert Gallatin]] was against the entire embargo, foreseeing correctly the impossibility of enforcing the policy and the negative public reaction. "As to the hope that it may...induce England to treat us better," wrote Gallatin to Jefferson shortly after the bill had become law, "I think is entirely groundless...government prohibitions do always more mischief than had been calculated; and it is not without much hesitation that a statesman should hazard to regulate the concerns of individuals as if he could do it better than themselves."<ref name=adams>{{cite book |title=Gallatin to Jefferson, December 1807 |volume= 1 |last=Adams |first=Henry |work=The Writings of Albert Gallatin |location=Philadelphia |publisher=Lippincott |year=1879}}</ref>{{rp|368}}

Since the bill hindered U.S. ships from leaving American ports bound for foreign trade; it had the side-effect of hindering American exploration.

===First supplementary act===
Just weeks later, on January 8, 1808, legislation again passed the Tenth U.S. Congress, Session 1; Chapter 8: "An Act supplementary..." to the Embargo Act (2 Stat. 453). As historian Forrest McDonald wrote, "A loophole had been discovered" in the initial enactment, "namely that coasting vessels, and fishing and whaling boats" had been exempt from the embargo, and they had been circumventing it, primarily via Canada. This '''supplementary act''' extended the bonding provision (i.e. Section 2 of the initial Embargo Act) to those of purely ''domestic'' trades:<ref>[http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=002/llsl002.db&recNum=490 2 Stat. 453 (1808)] Library of Congress, U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774–1875</ref>

* Sections 1 and 2 of the supplementary act required bonding to coasting, fishing and whaling ships and vessels. Even ''river boats'' had to post bond.
* Section 3 made violations of either the initial or supplementary act an offense; failure of the shipowner to comply would result in forfeiture of the ship and its cargo, or a fine of double that value, and denial of credit for use in custom duties; a captain failing to comply would be fined between one and twenty thousand dollars, and would forfeit the ability to swear an oath before any customs officer.
* Section 4 removed the warship exemption from applying to [[privateers]] or vessels with a [[letter of marque]].
* Section 5 established a fine for foreign ships loading merchandise for export, and allowed for its seizure.

Meanwhile, Jefferson requested authorization from Congress to raise 30,000 troops from the current standing army of 2,800. Congress refused. With their harbors for the most part unusable in the winter anyway, New England and the north ports of the mid-Atlantic states had paid little notice to the previous embargo acts. That was to change with the spring thaw, and the passing of yet another embargo act.{{r|adams|p=147}}

With the coming of the spring, the effect of the previous acts were immediately felt throughout the coastal states, especially in New England. An economic downturn turned into a depression and caused increasing unemployment. Protests occurred up and down the eastern coast. Most merchants and shippers simply ignored the laws. On the Canada–US border, especially in upstate New York and Vermont, the embargo laws were openly flouted. Federal officials believed parts of Maine, such as [[Passamaquoddy Bay]] on the border with British-held [[New Brunswick]], were in open rebellion. By March, an increasingly frustrated Jefferson was resolved to enforce the embargo to the letter.{{Citation needed|date=June 2008}}

===Other supplements to the Act===
On March 12, 1808, Congress passed and Jefferson signed into law yet another supplement to the Embargo Act. This supplement{{Citation needed|date=November 2008}} prohibited, for the first time, all exports of any goods, whether by land or by sea. Violators were subject to a fine of US$10,000, plus forfeiture of goods, per offense. It granted the President broad discretionary authority to enforce, deny, or grant exceptions to the embargo.{{r|adams|p=144}} Port authorities were authorized to seize cargoes without a [[warrant (law)|warrant]] and to try any shipper or merchant who was thought to have merely contemplated violating the embargo.

Despite the added penalties, citizens and shippers openly ignored the embargo. Protests continued to grow; and so it was that the Jefferson administration requested and Congress rendered yet another embargo act.

==Consequences==
[[File:Ograbme.jpg|thumb|300px|An 1807 political cartoon showing merchants caught by a [[Common snapping turtle|snapping turtle]] named "Ograbme" ("Embargo" spelled backwards). The embargo was also ridiculed in the New England press as ''Dambargo'', ''Mob-Rage'', or ''Go-bar-'em''.]]

The Embargo was hurting the United States as much as Britain or France. Britain, expecting to suffer most from the American regulations, built up a new South American market for its exports, and the British shipowners were pleased that American competition had been removed by the action of the U.S. government.

Jefferson placed himself in a strange position with his Embargo policy. Though he had so frequently and eloquently argued for as little government intervention as possible, he now found himself assuming extraordinary powers in an attempt to enforce his policy. The presidential election of 1808, in which [[James Madison]] defeated [[Charles Cotesworth Pinckney]], showed that the Federalists were regaining strength, and helped to convince Jefferson and Madison that the Embargo would have to be removed.<ref>{{cite book |first1=Robert W. |last1=Tucker |authorlink1=Robert W. Tucker |first2=David C. |last2=Hendrickson |title=Empire of Liberty: The Statecraft of Thomas Jefferson |url=https://archive.org/details/empireoflibertys0000tuck |url-access=registration |year=1990 |chapter=Chapter 20 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=0-19-506207-8}}</ref>

Shortly before leaving office, in March 1809, Jefferson signed the repeal of the failed Embargo. Despite its unpopular nature, the Embargo Act did have some limited, unintended benefits, especially as entrepreneurs and workers responded by bringing in fresh capital and labor into New England textile and other manufacturing industries, lessening America's reliance on the British merchants.{{r|Strum}}<ref>{{cite journal |first=Jeffrey A. |last=Frankel |authorlink=Jeffrey Frankel |title=The 1807–1809 Embargo Against Great Britain |journal=Journal of Economic History |date=June 1982 |volume=42 |issue=2 |pages=291–308 |jstor=2120129}}</ref>

===Repealing the legislation===
On March 1, 1809, Congress passed the [[Non-Intercourse Act (1809)|Non-Intercourse Act]], a law that enabled the President, once the wars of Europe ended, to declare the country sufficiently safe and to allow foreign trade with certain nations.<ref>{{cite book|editor1-first=David Stephen |editor1-last=Heidler |editor2-first=Jeanne T. |editor2-last=Heidler |title=Encyclopedia of the War of 1812 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_c09EJgek50C&pg=PA390 |year=2004 |pages=390–91 |publisher=Naval Institute Press |isbn=978-1-591-14362-8}}</ref>

In 1810 the government was ready to try yet another tactic of economic coercion, in the desperate measure known as [[Macon's Bill Number 2]].<ref>{{cite book |first=Garry |last=Wills |title=James Madison: The 4th President, 1809–1817 |series=The American Presidents Series |volume=4 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EtEqdvpuOwQC&pg=PA87 |year=2002 |page=87 |isbn=978-0-8050-6905-1}}</ref> This bill became law on May 1, 1810, and replaced the Non-Intercourse Act. It was an acknowledgment of the failure of economic pressure to coerce the European powers. Trade with both Britain and France was now thrown open, and the United States attempted to bargain with the two belligerents. If either power would remove her restrictions on American commerce, the United States would reapply non-intercourse against the power that had not so acted. Napoleon quickly took advantage of this opportunity. He promised that his Berlin and Milan Decrees would be repealed, and Madison reinstated non-intercourse against Britain in the fall of 1810. Though Napoleon did not fulfill his promise, strained Anglo-American relations prevented his being brought to task for his duplicity.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Merrill|first1=Dennis|last2=Paterson|first2=Thomas|title=Major Problems in American Foreign Relations: To 1920|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=spA88Rt23soC&pg=PA132|accessdate=December 21, 2011|date=September 2009|publisher=Cengage Learning|isbn=978-0-547-21824-3|pages=132–33}}</ref>

The attempt of Jefferson and Madison to resist aggression by peaceful means gained a belated success in June 1812 when Britain finally promised to repeal their [[Orders in Council (1807)|Orders in Council]]. The British concession was too late, for by the time the news reached America the United States had already declared the [[War of 1812]] against Britain.

==Wartime legislation==
America's declaration of war, in mid-June 1812, was followed shortly by the Enemy Trade Act of 1812 on July 6, which employed similar restrictions as previous legislation;<ref>{{cite web |url=https://govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/2/STATUTE-2-Pg778.pdf |title=Enemy Trade Act of 1812 ~ P.L. 12-129 |work=2 Stat. 778 ~ Chapter CXXIX |date=July 6, 1812 |publisher=USLaw.Link}}</ref>  it was likewise ineffective and tightened in December 1813, and debated for further tightening in December 1814.  After existing embargoes expired with the onset of war, the Embargo Act of 1813 was signed into law December 17, 1813.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/3/STATUTE-3-Pg88.pdf |title=Embargo Act of 1813 ~ P.L. 13-1 |work=3 Stat. 88 ~ Chapter I |date=December 17, 1813 |publisher=USLaw.Link}}</ref>  Four new restrictions were included: An embargo prohibiting all American ships and goods from leaving port;  a complete ban on certain commodities customarily produced in the British Empire; a ban against foreign ships trading in American ports unless 75% of the crew were citizens of the ship's flag; and a ban on ransoming ships. The Embargo of  1813 was the nation's last great trade restriction. Never again would the US government cut off all its trade to achieve a foreign policy objective.<ref>{{cite book |first=Donald R. |last=Hickey |title=The War of 1812 – A Forgotten Conflict |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=390r2-ayPY0C&pg=PA159&#v=onepage&q&f=false |chapter=Ch.7: The Last Embargo |pages=172, 181}}</ref>  The act particularly hurt the northeastern states, since the British kept a tighter blockade on the south, and thus encouraged American opposition to the administration. To make his point, the act was not lifted by Madison until after the defeat of Napoleon, and the point was moot.  On February 15, 1815, Madison signed the [[Enemy Trade Act of 1815]];<ref>{{cite web |url=https://govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/3/STATUTE-3-Pg195a.pdf |title=Enemy Trade Act of 1815 ~ P.L. 13-31 |work=3 Stat. 195 ~ Chapter XXXI |date=February 4, 1815 |publisher=USLaw.Link}}</ref> it was tighter than any previous trade restriction including the Enforcement Act of 1809 (January 9) and the Embargo of 1813, but it would expire two weeks later when official word of peace from Ghent was received.<ref>{{cite book |editor1-first=Spencer C. |editor1-last=Tucker |editorlink1=Spencer C. Tucker |editor2-first=James R. |editor2-last=Arnold |title=The Encyclopedia Of the War Of 1812, a political, social, and military history |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=VljA5QEI9_wC&pg=PA221 |pages=221–25 |publisher=ABC-CLIO |year=2012 |isbn=1-85109-956-5}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/2/STATUTE-2-Pg506.pdf |title=Enforcement Act of 1809 ~ P.L. 10-5 |work=2 Stat. 506 ~ Chapter V |date=January 9, 1809 |publisher=USLaw.Link}}</ref>

==See also==
* [[Bibliography of Thomas Jefferson]]
* [[Second-term curse]]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==Further reading==
*Hofstadter, Richard. 1948. ''The American Political Tradition'' (Chapter 11) Alfred A. Knopf. in Essays on the Early Republic, 1789–1815  Leonard Levy, Editor. Dryden Press, 1974.
*{{Cite journal |last=Irwin |first=Douglas A. |authorlink=Douglas Irwin |year=2005 |title=The Welfare Cost of Autarky: Evidence from the Jeffersonian Trade Embargo, 1807–09 |journal=Review of International Economics |volume=13 |issue=4 |pages=631–45 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-9396.2005.00527.x |url=http://www.nber.org/papers/w8692.pdf }}
*{{Cite journal |last=Kaplan |first=Lawrence S. |title=Jefferson, the Napoleonic Wars, and the Balance of Power |journal=William and Mary Quarterly |year=1957 |volume=14 |issue=2 |pages=196–217 |doi=10.2307/1922110 |jstor=1922110}} in Essays on the Early Republic, 1789–1815  Leonard Levy, Editor. Dryden Press, 1974.
*{{Cite book |last=Levy |first=Leonard W. |title=Jefferson and Civil Liberties: The Darker Side |year=1963 |location=Cambridge |publisher=Belknap Press }}
*Levy, Leonard. 1974. ''Essays on the Early Republic, 1789–1815''. Dryden Press, 1974.
*{{Cite book |last=McDonald |first=Forrest |title=The Presidency of Thomas Jefferson |year=1976 |location=Lawrence |publisher=University Press of Kansas |isbn=0-7006-0147-3 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/presidencyofthom0000mcdo }}
*{{Cite book |last=Malone |first=Dumas |title=Jefferson the President: The Second Term |year=1974 |location=Boston |publisher=Little, Brown |isbn=0-316-54465-5 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/jeffersonhistime0000malo }}
*{{Cite journal |last=Mannix |first=Richard |title=Gallatin, Jefferson, and the Embargo of 1808 |journal=Diplomatic History |year=1979 |volume=3 |issue=2 |pages=151–72 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-7709.1979.tb00307.x }}
*{{Cite journal |last=Muller |first=H. Nicholas |title=Smuggling into Canada: How the Champlain Valley Defied Jefferson's Embargo |journal=Vermont History |year=1970 |volume=38 |issue=1 |pages=5–21 |issn=0042-4161 }}
*Perkins, Bradford. 1968. ''Embargo: Alternative to War'' (Chapter 8 from Prologue to War: England and the United States, 1805–1812, University of California Press, 1968) in ''Essays on the Early Republic 1789–1815''. Leonard Levy, Editor. Dryden Press, 1974.
*{{Cite book |last=Sears |first=Louis Martin |title=Jefferson and the Embargo |year=1927 |location=Durham |publisher=Duke University Press }}
*{{Cite book |last=Smelser |first=Marshall |title=The Democratic Republic, 1801–1815 |year=1968 |location=New York |publisher=Harper & Row |isbn=0-06-131406-4 }}
*{{Cite book |last=Smith |first=Joshua M. |chapter=‘So Far Distant from the Eyes of Authority:’ Jefferson’s Embargo and the U.S. Navy, 1807–1809 |editor-first=Craig |editor-last=Symonds |title=New Interpretations in Naval History: Selected Papers from the Twelfth Naval History Symposium |location=Annapolis, MD |publisher=Naval Institute Press |year=1998 |pages=123–40 |isbn=1-55750-624-8 }}
*{{Cite journal |last=Smith |first=Joshua M. |title=Murder on Isle au Haut: Violence and Jefferson’s Embargo in Coastal Maine, 1808–1809 |journal=Maine History |volume=39 |issue=1 |year=2000 |pages=17–40 }}
*{{Cite book |last=Smith |first=Joshua M. |title=Borderland Smuggling: Patriots, Loyalists, and Illicit Trade in the Northeast, 1783–1820 |year=2006 |location=Gainesville |publisher=University Press of Florida |isbn=0-8130-2986-4 }}
*{{Cite book |last=Spivak |first=Burton |title=Jefferson's English Crisis: Commerce, Embargo, and the Republican Revolution |year=1979 |location=Charlottesville |publisher=University Press of Virginia |isbn=0-8139-0805-1 }}
*{{Cite journal |last=Strum |first=Harvey |title=Rhode Island and the Embargo of 1807 |journal=Rhode Island History |year=1994 |volume=52 |issue=2 |pages=58–67 |issn=0035-4619 }}

==External links==
* [http://www.publicbookshelf.com/public_html/The_Great_Republic_By_the_Master_Historians_Vol_II/theembarg_jf.html The Embargo Act of 1807], ''The Great Republic By the Master Historians'', [[Hubert H. Bancroft]], Ed. (c.1900)

{{Thomas Jefferson}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Embargo Act Of 1807}}
[[Category:1807 in American law]]
[[Category:United States federal trade legislation]]
[[Category:History of the United States (1789–1849)]]
[[Category:Presidency of Thomas Jefferson]]
[[Category:10th United States Congress]]
[[Category:Embargoes]]
[[Category:United Kingdom–United States relations]]
[[Category:France–United States relations]]
[[Category:1807 in economics]]
[[Category:Legislation of the War of 1812]]
[[Category:History of foreign trade of the United States]]
[[Category:December 1807 events]]