could be actually carried
out. Out of these circumstances grew up the abuse of "paper blockades."

The climax was reached in the "Continental Blockade" decreed by Napoleon
in 1806, which continued till it was abolished by international
agreement in 1812. This blockade forbade all countries under French
dominion or allied with France to have any communication with Great
Britain. Great Britain replied in 1807 by a similar measure. The first
nation to protest against these fictitious blockades was the United
States. Already in 1800 John Marshall, secretary of state, wrote to the
American minister in Great Britain pointing out objections which have
since been universally admitted. In the following interesting passage he
said:--

"Ports not effectually blockaded by a force capable of completely
investing them have yet been declared in a state of blockade.... If
the effectiveness of the blockade be dispensed with, then every port
of the belligerent powers may at all times be declared in that state,
and the commerce of neutrals be thereby subjected to universal
capture. But if this principle be strictly adhered to, the capacity to
blockade will be limited by the naval force of the belligerent and, in
consequence, the mischief to neutral commerce cannot be very
extensive. It is, therefore, of the last importance to neutrals that
this principle be maintained unimpaired. I observe that you have
pressed this reasoning on the British minister, who replies that an
occasional absence of a fleet from a blockaded port ought not to
change the state of the place. Whatever force this observation may be
entitled to, where that occasional absence has been produced by an
accident, as a storm, which for a moment blows off a fleet and forces
it from its station, which station it immediately resumes, I am
persuaded that where a part of the fleet is applied, though only for a
time, to other objects or comes into port, the very principle
requiring an effective blockade, which is that the mischief can only
be coextensive with the naval force of the belligerent, requires that
during such temporary absence the commerce to the neutrals to the
place should be free."[1]

Again in 1803 James Madison wrote to the then American minister in
London:--

"The law of nations requires to constitute a blockade that there
should be the presence and position of a force rendering access to the
prohibited pl