war. In advocating this measure he spoke of the sorry
experience of the country in depending upon militia. Their "want of
discipline occasions them to commit a great waste on the property of their
fellow citizens, besides a waste of public property." As long as we depend
upon militia, "European nations will not consider us as able to retaliate
and assert our rights." Nothing came of this sensible proposal, but
Sedgwick made an auxiliary suggestion which Congress did adopt. He urged
that the sailing of vessels from the ports of the United States be
prohibited. An embargo would hold over foreign nations the threat that,
unless they behaved themselves, their supplies from the United States
might be cut off. Such embargo was voted for a month from March 26, 1794,
which was subsequently extended for another month, and the President was
authorized to lay, regulate, and revoke embargoes during the recess of
Congress. Congress regarded the embargo policy as a cheap way out of a
difficult situation, but this method was really not only far more costly
to the nation than would have been the straightforward course of arming
for defense, but at the same time accomplished nothing. Dayton of New
Jersey proposed to supplement the embargo by the sequestration of all
debts due from citizens of the United States to British subjects. Clark of
New Jersey outdid his colleague by proposing to prohibit all commercial
intercourse between the United States and Great Britain until such time
as that country should surrender the western posts and should make
restitution for all losses sustained by American citizens.

Violent speeches were made on these proposals at the very time when the
House was refusing to support either an army or a navy. Sedgwick
introduced some good sense into a debate that was alternating between
blatant vaporing and legal pedantry, by pointing out that, under the
Constitution, the President of the United States ought to be allowed
to have some say about the matter. It was the function of the President
to treat with foreign powers, and yet the House was now considering action
which was in effect "prescribing the terms of treaty, and restraining
the constitutional power from treating on any other terms." This argument
was used effectively by a number of speakers. It turned the main
position taken by the advocates of non-intercourse, which was that the
real objection came from the bondholders who feared that the ensuing
loss o