I'll post the prompt later.

1. 1
Louis Wischnewsky
History 170
Prof. Farrington
20 Jul 11
Final Exam Extra Credit: Question One
The controversy surrounding Jefferson's proposed Embargo Act had two aspects
involving the American economy and a foreign power deliberately placing American citizens in
harm's way. John Quincy Adams ultimately played a vital role early on in this historical drama
that would later continue to guide American foreign policy roughly 200 years later, with no sight
of change in that policy on the horizon. The question of whether or not Madison's War, the War
of 1812 was inevitable should not even need to be asked. Wars should be only fought when all
else fails. The fact this war was fought and yet, the question lingers these 200 plus years later
largely demonstrates it was not a necessary war.
The debate regarding controversy surrounding any potential embargo against England
during the Madison administration is whether or not there was only one aspect of the
controversy, according to members of this class. Some believe the controversy was strictly
whether or not the United States could afford an embargo against England. The problem with
that assessment is that there had to be a reason to create an embargo to begin with and to that
extent, the other aspect of the controversy was American sailors, not to mention American ships
and merchandise being commandeered, were being impressed into military service in England's
navy. Impressing those sailors, those citizens, in effect assured American citizens they would be
dying in the service of a foreign nation. Part of the controversy could include the Chesapeake –
Leopard Affair in which the entire matter rose to a new level when the English sleight against
Americans entered what was unquestionably American waters, ergo, American territory.

2. 2
It was that event, according to the Profiles in Courage video, that secured John Quincy
Adams' path into American history, a path that would lead him to forever be a footprint on
American foreign policy. A deeper grasp on why sentiments of the time foresaw a Quincy Adams
presidency would require more than this level of study offers. Perhaps his peers did not
genuinely see such a future but used prospects of such a future as a means to prod his ambitions
into aiding their political agendas. In any case, Adams' father's urging of the junior Adams to
avoid conflict with England was of importance in study of the case. Adams senior was trying to
assist in securing the younger's presidential ambitions by telling the younger to avoid the scandal
talk of an embargo would create. Yet, at the same time, in an irony of ironies, Adams the elder
encourages the younger to cling to the coattails of Thomas Jefferson. Not only had Adams the
elder and Jefferson grown apart, philosophically, from their days as Revolutionaries, but
Jefferson is championing the call for an embargo!
Ultimately it is Quincy Adams' conscience that causes him to both avoid his father's
advice and follow his father's advice: he sides with Jefferson. Now, the big question is whether or
not Quincy Adams joined Jefferson out of ambition or wanting to do what was right. The answer
to that question is unequivocally answered in Adams' actions throughout the rest of his life.
Perhaps what Jackson called Adams' “corrupt bargain” could be seen as a moment of moral
darkness for Adams. Even so, he did not violate any rules and merely followed normal protocol
when it comes to political posturing. The fact of the matter is, Jackson had not garnered, in 1824,
a victory according to the rules. He was one electoral vote shy of an absolute victory and that
predicament demanded that deals be made somewhere. Jackson should have seen this and taken
advantage of the situation. He did not and that was his loss. In any case, Adams made the
peaceful transition of power in the next election, further reflection of his good intentions in the
embargo matter, and went on to rail daily in Congress every time matters he deemed

3. 3
inappropriate were allowed to pass through the hands of the check of Congress, further evidence
of Adams' good nature.
While his soul craving to do what was right compelled Adams to join the call for an
embargo, it does not answer whether or not the War of 1812 was inevitable. The easy answer,
knowing the circumstances surrounding the lead up to the war, is yes, the war was inevitable and
that is how most are going to answer this question.
However, such a view ignores the atmosphere of the day and the results of the war. To
start off with, it was a war between France and England that even created a need, or reason, for
England to impress sailors or attempt to prevent trade with France. That's point one that the War
of 1812 was not inevitable. Second, it was America's hunger for profits that demanded American
politicians do their damnedest to remain neutral. America could have easily sided with England
removing all need for England to do what it was doing. America could have committed naval
assistance and troops to England's cause and that would have benefited America two-fold. Point
two? It would have stopped impressment of American citizens and it would have garnered
protection of American ships. More far reaching, though, it would have gained England's
assistance when it came to American conquest of the Southwest later, and that's point three. The
United States could have benefited to a good degree by siding with England – three points that
make it clear war was not inevitable. However, the fourth point is the anchor: the results of the
war. The Treaty of Ghent secured with England, at best, a stalemate. Psychologically it caused
Americans to falsely believe they had somehow brought the world's superpowers to fear the
United States. Strangely enough, this event certainly set the groundwork for America to more
directly step into the realm of superpower status. But that was roughly a decade away.
The controversy of the Embargo Act was that American's had to make a choice between
prosperity and defending the liberty and lives of individual citizens. John Quincy Adams was

4. 4
somehow positioned as the one man that would decide the virtue of the young nation and,
following his conscience, put in play events that would soon come to shape American foreign
policy forever. The War of 1812, Madison's War (since he was the war hawk president clamoring
for the taste of blood at the time), was an avoidable war. The argument might be made that war
was inevitable, but that would be war in general, not this specific war. In any case, these events
and this war would go on to encourage John Quincy Adams to craft Monroe's Doctrine, a policy
that remains at the ready of Secretaries of State to this day.