Jefferson’s embargo of 1807 is today cast as Jefferson punishing Britain and France for being at war with each other because modern day Democrats want to reinvent Jefferson as some sort of 1960’s peace activist.
The problem in 1807 was that Britain in particular and France second would seize American ships and crews to use in their war. Neither country saw the USA as a “real country” because it was just thirty years old and it didn’t have much of a military.
(the same things have been said of Ukraine these days)
Jefferson wanted to keep the US out of the European war and the only thing he could do was to order an embargo and keep US ships at home.
He meant well but all he did was put off a confrontation until 1812.
Lots of people these days say the war of 1812 accomplished nothing but that’s not true. By asserting itself against Britain (and we also had a couple battles with the French Navy) the US established itself as a “real” country with a “real” military that could match or defeat Britain at sea or on land.
After this war the British stopped seizing our ships and forcing American sailors into the Royal Navy.
The war also had the consequence of the US establishing forts in our ports, a standing Navy adequate enough to blunt Britain or France, and an Army capable of defeating an invader.
In many ways I see Ukraine doing as much right now. In the aftermath of this war the Ukrainians will probably always keep a standing military of consequence even if they join the EU or NATO. I know one of the aims of Putin’s SMO was to demilitarize Ukraine but the effect will be to compel them to arm themselves enough to defeat any future attack from Russia.
Iruna? Chussan? Ruanna? Irachissia?