American History Essay Example: Illinois Territory, Non-importation Act

Published: 2022-03-24
American History Essay Example: Illinois Territory, Non-importation Act
Type of paper:  Essay
Categories:  James Madison American revolution American history
Pages: 7
Wordcount: 1913 words
16 min read

Illinois territory

The Illinois territory formed the most considerable part of the Northwest Territory, the Indiana territory and the state of Ohio established in 1800 and 1803 were also part of the Northwest Territory which was formed through the northwest ordinance (wirt, 1870). The Illinois Territory was created on March 1st, 1809 and lasted until December 3, 1818; it is an organized territory of the United States formed under the acts of Congress. States that are composed of this territory are Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.

Trust banner

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

The story on Illinois territory dates back to 1760s when it was controlled by the French. The French had established several trading forts along the Mississippi, Illinois and Ohio Rivers. After the end of the Indian and French war in 1763, the territory become under the British. The British control over the region lasted for 15 years. After the end of the revolutionary war, Illinois became part of the Northwest Territory. Illinois then became its territory in 1809 covering the northern region of Wisconsin and eastern Minnesota.

Non-importation act

The history of the nonimportation act began in 1806. The bill was put in place to respond to the restrictions set in place by the British on neutral trade. The United States Congress passed the act on October 28, 1806. It restricted the importation of certain goods from the British as a response to the American sailor's impressments. This act saw a division of the house as some wanted a whole bun of the imported goods from Great Britain while other propose a bur on some selected goods. The selected products are those that could not be made in America and any other country apart from France and Britain. This act was suspended weeks after its enactment.

The non-importation act then paved the way for the formation of the Embargo ct of 1807. This was after the capturing of merchantman by the British royal navy. Thomas Jefferson was not ready for a military war and therefore opted to engage in an economic battle. The act was signed into law on December 22, 1807. The embargo act was the replaced by the non-0intercourse act of 1809 which imposed a whole bun against all French and British good and lifted bun against the other foreign ports. America could, therefore, trade with other countries except for Great Britain. This act remained in place until the war of 1812.

The importation act had both advantages and disadvantages to the economic development of the United States. This act helped the American to develop industrially. Before the bun, America depended much on imports from the Britain and France. Most of the essential commodities like clothing came from the Great Britain. These buns lead to the establishment of local production industries.

The acts also opened up trade between America and other regions, the non-intercourse act of 1809 that lifted all burn of American shipping except for British and French saw a rise in trade between the United States and other world ports. This was advantageous to the united state economy as the trade went on as usual.

The act was a disadvantage to the United States. The burn on the importation of goods from Britain and France would pose a significant threat to the United States economy as well as the British. The United States had no manufacturing industries for most of the essential commodities at that time. They mostly depended on the French and British. This would, therefore, lead to lack of specific products in the market hence force them to reconsider their actions.

Another disadvantage came in the form of economic destruction. The acts acted as suicide to the American economy as the British formed trade ties with South America to replace the United States. This saw the United States losing in the economic battle. The burn also saw some people importing British commodities to the states through other countries. This was an indication of a failure of the acts.

The 1812 wars were as a result of the trade restrictions. The response on tit for tat basis by America sailors on British sailors that lead to the death of 11 British sailors triggered an active war. The incident would later be known as the little belt affair. The British responded by sending Indian to raid American settlers. This lead to the war of 1812.

U.S vs. Peter

The case between Peter and the United States dates back during the revolutionary war. The incident came to Richard Peters desk in 1808. The main reason for the matter is the capture of a sloop during the period of the revolutionary war by the British navy. The sloop being sailed by Captain Gideon Olmstead along with his shipmates Artimus White, Aquilla Rumsdale and David Rumsdale was captured in the high seas, and the crew sent to Jamaica. They were then forced to work on a sloop named active that was scheduled to sail to New York with goods belonging to the British forces. The journey to New York never happened, and in turn, Olmstead overcame the British crew and changed the route to New Jersey. The trip to New Jersey was also intercepted by Pennsylvanian armed brig, and they were escorted to the port of Philadelphia.

The captains of the warships claimed profits from the sale of the sloop together with its cargo. The Connecticut sailors were not pleased by this decision and took the matter to a court of admiralty. The court then decided that what will be availed after the sale of the action would be divided among the owners of the convention, which is the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the all the crew of the three vessels was involved in the mater. This decision meant that Olmstead and his colleagues would only get one-quarter of the total value of the sloop. Olmstead then decided to file an appeal with the court of commissioners of appeal.

The appeal court annulled the court of admiralty ruling and directed that the proceeding s from the sale of the sloop be directed to Olmstead, White, Rumsdale, and Clark. This was the departure of the squabbling due to the fate of the active and its cargo. Judge Ross of the court of admiralty refused to honor the appeals court's verdict. Though he admitted that the US appeal court had the power to overturn the court of admiralty verdict, he was of the opinion that the case was well decided by the jury and he was bound to honors the jury's judgment by the Pennsylvanian laws. On learning this, Olmstead acquired an injunction that directed the Marshall in charge of the sales to hand the proceeds to the appeals court. The Marshall ignored and gave them to Judge Ross.

Ross turned the sales to US loan certificate and turned the Pennsylvanian share certificate over to David Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse was the treasurer of the state. He gave judge rose a certificate of indemnity. This meant that Rose could no claim any amount of the sum in future. Rittenhouse kept the certificate in his account and was willing at any time to hand it over to the state of Pennsylvania. The state never claimed the certificate.

After the death of Rittenhouse, a suit was brought against executrixes of the Rittenhouse estate demanding that the proceeding to be turned over by the appeal courts verdict. This attracted interest from the Pennsylvanian general assembly which requested the delivery of the certificate to the treasury through an act they passed in 1801. The executrix, Elizabeth, and Esther refused to do so as both Olmstead and the Pennsylvania state were claiming the certificate. This misunderstanding lasted until 1808 when Olmstead acquired a writ of mandamus. Judge Peter refused to honor the same citing the eleventh amendment prevent the United States judicial powers from extending to any lawsuit prosecuted against any state. He also claimed that the Pennsylvania state threatened to use armed force in the case to prevent the ruling from being affected.

In 1809, the court through chief Justice Marshall ordered judge Peters to honor the mandamus. The Chief Justice cited that the certificate was not the property of the state of Pennsylvania, the certificate belongs to Rittenhouse who acted as a private citizen in the case. He cited that if several states annul decisions made by the court of the United States, this destroys the rights gained during those judgments. This would show a deprivation of the country to enforce its laws and also paint a bad picture on the tribunals involved. Therefore the states could not annul the supreme court's judgments nor determine the federal court's jurisdiction.

This decision by the Supreme Court boosted the powers of the court. The time that the decision was made was filled with mistrust of the federal court, and the US government was still young. The case brought a new picture of the powers of the supreme court and made it clear that its decisions could not be annulled by any state.

James Madison's inauguration address

The first James Madison inauguration took place on March 4, 1809, in Washington D.C. he was assuming office as the fourth president of the United States of America. In his speech, Madison was overwhelmed by the happiness he had for being elected as the fourth president of the United States. He explained how great the citizen of the United States was and how honored he was for them to choose him, president. In his speech, he emphasized peaceful coexistence of the United States with other countries and among its states. He addressed that America will remain neutral and place an environment conducive for the citizens to build their nation on.

He assured the American citizens that justice would prevail in the nation. This is through the respect of the rule of law and respect for the constitution which he termed to it as the cement of the union. The promised the respect for all religions and private and personal rights. He promised the freedom of the press and liberates public resources as well as observing the public expenditure. Apart from this, he promised a strong military force that would guard the United States and safe gourd the sovereignty of the citizen of the state. Madison also addressed the need to pace an environment conducive to the advancement in agriculture and the manufacturing industry; he also talked of the improvement in external and internal commerce to boost the unites states economy. He never left behind the need to protect the aboriginal neighbors who were living a degraded life at that time.

Winding up his speech, Madison praised his predecessors who ruled before him as having led the country during the most trying times when the United States was still young. He also thanked the Supreme Being who made America what it was at that time and the blessing he gave the nation.


Edwards, Ninian Wirt (1870). History of Illinois, from 1778 to 1833; and Life and Times of Ninian Edwards. Retrieved 2008-02-24.

Posts about Illinois Territory on The History Rat. Retrieved February 25, 2018, from

Non-Importation Act (1806). Retrieved February 25, 2018, from

United States v. Peters - The Fate Of The Active. Retrieved February 26, 2018, from

Peters, G., & Woolley, J. (n.d.). James Madison: Inaugural Address - March 4, 1809. Retrieved February 26, 2018, from

Perkins Bradford. "Jefferson and Madison: The Diplomacy of Fear and Hope." The Creation of a Republican Empire, Cambridge University Press, 1993. Cambridge Histories Online. Cambridge University Press. 15 March 2010. DOI: 10.1017/CHOL97805213820 90.006

Cite this page

American History Essay Example: Illinois Territory, Non-importation Act. (2022, Mar 24). Retrieved from

Request Removal

If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the SpeedyPaper website, please click below to request its removal:

Liked this essay sample but need an original one?

Hire a professional with VAST experience!

24/7 online support

NO plagiarism