Conciliatory explanations were made by Hammond, the British minister, in notifying our State Department.  He pointed out that only corn and flour were contraband, that the regulations did not extend to other provisions, and that they secured “to the proprietors, supposing them neutral, a full indemnification for any loss they may possibly sustain.”  The special privilege extended to Denmark and Sweden was attributed to treaty requirements and therefore could not be regarded as invidious.  In reply Jefferson at home and Pinckney abroad argued in behalf of the United States for the principle that free ships make free goods, but Great Britain would not hearken to a doctrine that struck at the efficacy of her sea power.

Washington besought Congress to support the efforts of the Administration by making, for the defense of American interests, such provision as would inspire respect.  In his address of December 3, 1793, he observed:  “There is a rank due to the United States among nations which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness.  If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war.”  The answer of Congress was the grudging consent to some naval preparations already recounted.

After the passage of the navy bill Sedgwick of Massachusetts endeavored to interest the House in the general subject of military preparation.  On March 12, 1794, he introduced resolutions for raising fifteen additional regiments for two years, the term to be extended for three years in case of the outbreak of 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.