An embargo will backfire if there is not enough available supply to meet demand. Britain was by far the largest manufacturer in the early 1800's, and the most dominant in trade.
France's attempt to embargo Britain worked against it because Britain could find alternatives to or simply do without many commodities available on the Continent, whereas the Continental states could not do without goods traded by Britain or from overseas colonies whose trade was being interfered with by Britain.
Had France and other continental powers possessed naval superiority over Britain, and had they had a greater manufacturing capability to provide the goods that Britain otherwise provided, then the Continental System would have worked. Unfortunately, France had neither.
2006-10-12 06:57:46
·
answer #1
·
answered by ³√carthagebrujah 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
Here is the theory on it:
Its effect on the United Kingdom and on British trade is uncertain, but thought to be much less harmful than on the continental European states. The continental European states needed the British goods, and Napoleon had put in place internal tariffs, all favoring France and hurting the other nations. The embargo encouraged British merchants to aggressively seek out new markets and to engage in smuggling with continental Europe. Napoleon's exclusively land-based customs enforcers could not stop British smugglers, especially as these operated with the connivance of Napoleon's chosen rulers of Spain, Westphalia and other German states, who faced severe shortages of goods from the French colonies. The British, by Orders in Council (1807), prohibited her trade partners from trading with France. In response the United States Congress passed the Embargo Act of 1807. This contributed to the general ill will between the two countries and, together with the issue of the impressment of foreign seamen, eventually led to armed conflict between the United States and the United Kingdom in the War of 1812.
Please read the whole article at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_system
2006-10-12 06:47:31
·
answer #2
·
answered by EUPKid 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
Similarities and differences. Napoleon didn't have the rest of Europe supporting him, however I am bemused by the rhetoric that if the Euro fails it will be bad for all of us. For that read it will be bad for the Politicians, and in particualr bad for Germany if some of the weaker Countries pull out of the Euro. What everyone is not being told by Merkozy (the real truth is thay may not understand themselves) is that Greece and some of the other Countries are making the Euro weak for Germany thus boosting Germany's exports. Germany is not in recession because for it the Euro is weak, as opposed to Greece where the Euro is too strong, were Greece to come out of the Euro (which would require someone to underwrite its debts) the Drachma would be worth perhaps 70% even 60% of the Euro, so its exports would then be cheap and also holidays there would then be cheap, this would boost its imports and allow it in the medium and long term to pay its debts. But Germany would then find the Euro rises (no more downward pressure from Greece) and its exports would fall, but also the pressure would then be on Portugal,Spain, Italy and Ireland and possibly others. If they came out the Euro would rise further, so exports for Britain and other non Euro Countries into Germany would rise. This is what the markets understand which is why there is no collapse of the Euro. And yes there is no reason Britain being out of Europe, Japan and Switzerland hardly suffer for not being in Europe.
2016-03-28 06:31:55
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋