Complete Download Digital Signal Processing Using MATLAB 3rd Edition Robert J. Schilling PDF All Chapters
Complete Download Digital Signal Processing Using MATLAB 3rd Edition Robert J. Schilling PDF All Chapters
https://ebookfinal.com/download/digital-signal-processing-using-
matlab-2nd-edition-vinay-k-ingle/
https://ebookfinal.com/download/digital-signal-and-image-processing-
using-matlab-gerard-blanchet/
https://ebookfinal.com/download/digital-signal-processing-3rd-edition-
s-salivahanan/
https://ebookfinal.com/download/digital-image-processing-using-
matlab-2nd-edition-rafael-c-gonzalez/
Digital signal and image processing using MATLAB Volume 3
Advances and applications the Stochastic case 2nd Edition
Blanchet
https://ebookfinal.com/download/digital-signal-and-image-processing-
using-matlab-volume-3-advances-and-applications-the-stochastic-
case-2nd-edition-blanchet/
https://ebookfinal.com/download/signals-systems-transforms-and-
digital-signal-processing-with-matlab-1st-edition-michael-corinthios/
https://ebookfinal.com/download/digital-signal-processing-
international-edition-proakis/
https://ebookfinal.com/download/digital-signal-processing-using-the-
arm-cortex-m4-1st-edition-donald-s-reay/
Digital Signal Processing using MATLAB 3rd Edition
Robert J. Schilling Digital Instant Download
Author(s): Robert J. Schilling, Sandra L Harris
ISBN(s): 9781305635197, 1305635191
Edition: 3
File Details: PDF, 19.15 MB
Year: 2016
Language: english
Digital Signal Processing
Using MATLAB®
Third Edition
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
This is an electronic version of the print textbook. Due to electronic rights restrictions, some third party content may be suppressed. Editorial
review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. The publisher reserves the right to
remove content from this title at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. For valuable information on pricing, previous
editions, changes to current editions, and alternate formats, please visit www.cengage.com/highered to search by
ISBN#, author, title, or keyword for materials in your areas of interest.
Important Notice: Media content referenced within the product description or the product text may not be available in the eBook version.
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Digital Signal Processing Using MATLAB®, © 2017, 2012 Cengage Learning®
Third Edition WCN: 02-200-203
Robert J. Schilling and Sandra L. Harris
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this work covered by the copyright
Product Director, Global Engineering: herein may be reproduced, transmitted, stored, or used in any form
Timothy L. Anderson or by any means graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including but not
Senior Content Developer: Mona Zeftel limited to photocopying, recording, scanning, digitizing, taping, Web
Associate Media Content Developer: distribution, information networks, or information storage and retrieval
Ashley Kaupert systems, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976
United States Copyright Act, without the prior written permission of
Product Assistant: Teresa Versaggi the publisher.
Marketing Manager: Kristin Stine
Director, Content and Media Production: For product information and technology assistance, contact us at
Sharon L. Smith Cengage Learning Customer & Sales Support, 1-800-354-9706.
Content Project Manager: Nadia Saloom For permission to use material from this text or product,
submit all requests online at www.cengage.com/permissions
Production Service: RPK Editorial Services, Inc.
Further permissions questions can be emailed to
Copyeditor: Harlan James [email protected]
Proofreader: Martha McMaster
Indexer: Rose Kernan
Compositor: MPS Limited Library of Congress Control Number: 2015949697
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
To our mothers
for all they have done for us
and
Florence E. Harris
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Preface
Digital signal processing, more commonly known as DSP, is a
field of study with increasingly widespread applications in our
technological world. This book focuses on the development, im-
plementation, and application of modern DSP techniques. The
textbook structure consists of three major parts as summarized
in Table 1.
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
vi Preface
essential. Graphical user interface (GUI) modules are included at the end of each chapter
that allow students to interactively explore signal processing concepts and techniques
without any need for programming. MATLAB computation problems are supplied for
those users who are familiar with MATLAB and are interested in developing their own
DSP programs.
This book is written in an engaging informal style that endeavors to provide motiva-
tion for each new topic and features a careful transition between topics. Significant terms
are set apart for convenient reference using Margin Notes and Definitions. Important
results are stated as Propositions in order to highlight their significance, and Algorithms
are included to summarize the steps used to implement design procedures. In order to
motivate students with examples that are of direct interest, many of the examples feature
the processing of speech and music. This theme is also a focus of the DSP Companion
course software, which includes a facility for recording and playing back speech and
sound. This way, students can experience directly the effects of various signal processing
techniques.
Chapter Structure
All of the chapters follow the template shown in Figure 1. Each chapter starts with a
brief list of the topics covered. This is followed by a motivation section that introduces
one or more examples of practical problems that can be solved using techniques covered
in the chapter. The main body of each chapter is used to introduce a series of analysis
tools and signal processing techniques. Within these sections, the analysis methods and
processing techniques evolve from simple to more complex. Sections near the end of the
chapter marked with a * denote more advanced or more specialized material that can be
Figure 1: Chapter
Structure
Topics
Motivation
Concepts,
techniques,
examples
GUI software,
case studies
Chapter summary
Problems
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Preface vii
skipped without loss of continuity. Numerous examples are used throughout to illustrate
the principles involved.
Near the end of each chapter is a GUI software and Case Studies section that intro-
duces GUI Modules designed to allow the student to interactively explore the chapter
concepts and techniques without any need for programming. The GUI Modules fea-
ture a common user interface that is simple to use and easy to learn. Results exported
from one module can be imported into other modules. This section also includes Case
Study examples that present complete solutions to practical problems in the form of
MATLAB programs. The Chapter Summary concisely reviews important concepts and
includes a table of student learning outcomes for each section. The chapter concludes
with an extensive set of homework problems separated into three categories and cross-
referenced to the sections. The Analysis and Design problems can be done by hand or
with a calculator. They are designed to test (and in some cases extend) student under-
standing of the chapter material. The GUI Simulation problems allow the student to
interactively explore processing and design techniques using the chapter GUI modules.
No programming is required for these problems. MATLAB Computation problems are
provided that require students to write programs that apply the signal processing tech-
niques covered in the chapter. Complete solutions to selected problems, marked with the
symbol, are available using the DSP Companion software.
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
viii Preface
Acknowledgments
This project has been several years in the making, and many individuals have contributed
to its completion. The reviewers commissioned by Brooks/Cole and Cengage Learning
made numerous thoughtful and insightful suggestions that were incorporated into the
final draft. Thanks to graduate students Joe Tari, Rui Guo, and Lingyun Bai for helping
review the initial DSP Companion software. Special thanks to Bill Stenquist of Brooks/
Cole who worked closely with us to bring the first edition to completion. We thank the re-
viewers for this edition for their helpful comments: Selim Awad, University of Michigan-
Dearborn; Frederick Harris, San Diego State University; Thomas Hebert, University of
Houston; Vishal Monga, Penn State; and Tokunbo Ogunfunmi, Santa Clara University.
The latest edition has a number of important improvements.
We wish to acknowledge and thank our Global Engineering team at Cengage
Learning for their dedication to this new edition: Timothy Anderson, Product Director;
Mona Zeftel, Senior Content Developer; Jana Lewis, Content Project Manager; Kristin
Stine, Marketing Manager; Elizabeth Murphy, Engagement Specialist; Ashley Kaupert,
Associate Media Content Developer; Teresa Versaggi and Alexander Sham, Product
Assistants; and Rose Kernan of RPK Editorial Services, Inc. They have skillfully guided
every aspect of this text’s development and production to successful completion.
Robert J. Schilling
Sandra L. Harris
Potsdam, NY
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Contents
Margin Contents xix
Part I: Signal and System Analysis 1
1. Signal Processing 3
1.1 Motivation 3
1.1.1 Digital and Analog Processing 4
1.1.2 Total Harmonic Distortion (THD) 6
1.1.3 A Notch Filter 7
1.1.4 Active Noise Control 7
1.1.5 Video Aliasing 9
1.2 Signals and Systems 11
1.2.1 Signal Classification 11
1.2.2 System Classification 16
1.3 Sampling of Continuous-time Signals 21
1.3.1 Sampling as Modulation 21
1.3.2 Aliasing 23
1.4 Reconstruction of Continuous-time Signals 27
1.4.1 Reconstruction Formula 27
1.4.2 Zero-order Hold 29
1.4.3 Delayed First-order Hold 32
1.5 Prefilters and Postfilters 35
1.5.1 Anti-aliasing Filter 35
1.5.2 Anti-imaging Filter 39
*1.6 DAC and ADC Circuits 41
1.6.1 Digital-to-analog Converter (DAC) 41
1.6.2 Analog-to-digital Converter (ADC) 43
*Sections marked with a * contain more advanced or specialized material that can be skipped without
loss of continuity.
ix
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
x Contents
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Contents xi
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
xii Contents
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Contents xiii
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
xiv Contents
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Contents xv
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
xvi Contents
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Contents xvii
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Margin Contents
xix
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
xx Margin Contents
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
PART
Signal Processing
2 3
Discrete-time Discrete-time
Systems in the Systems in the
Time Domain Frequency Domain
Fourier Transforms
and Signal Spectra
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Signal Processing
CHAPTER 1
CHAPT ER ToPiC S
1.1Motivation 1.1 Motivation
1.2Signals and Systems
A signal is a physical variable whose value varies with time or
1.3Sampling of Continuous-
space. When the value of the signal is available over a continuum
time Signals of times, it is referred to as a continuous-time signal. Continuous-
time signals whose amplitudes also vary over a continuous range
1.4 Reconstruction of
are called analog signals. Everyday examples of analog signals
Continuous-time Signals include temperature, pressure, liquid level, chemical concentra-
tion, voltage and current, position, velocity, acceleration, force
1.5 Prefilters and Postfilters
and torque. If the value of the signal is available only at discrete
*1.6 DAC and ADC Circuits instants of time, it is called a discrete-time signal. Although some
signals, for example economic data, are inherently discrete-time
1.7 DSP Companion
signals, a more common way to produce a discrete-time signal,
1.8 GUI Modules and Case x(k), is to take samples of an underlying analog signal, xa(t).
Studies x(k) 5 xa(kT ), uku 5 0, 1, 2, Á
D
1.9 Chapter Summary Here T denotes the sampling interval or time between samples,
D
1.10 Problems and 5 means equals by definition. When finite precision is used
to represent the value of x(k), the sequence of quantized val-
Continuous-time signal
ues is then called a digital signal. A system or algorithm which
processes one digital signal x(k) as its input and produces a sec-
Analog signal ond digital signal y(k) as its output is a digital signal proces-
Discrete-time signal sor. Digital signal processing (DSP) techniques have widespread
applications, and they play an increasingly important role in the
Sampling interval
modern world. Application areas include speech recognition,
Digital signal detection of targets with radar and sonar, processing of music
and video, seismic exploration for oil and gas deposits, medical
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
4 Chapter 1 Signal Processing
signal processing including EEG, EKG, and ultrasound, communication channel equal-
ization, and satellite image processing. The focus of this book is the development, imple-
mentation, and application of modern DSP techniques.
We begin this introductory chapter with a comparison of digital and analog sig-
nal processing. Next, some practical problems are posed that can be solved using DSP
techniques. This is followed by characterization and classification of signals. The funda-
mental notion of the spectrum of a signal is then presented including the concepts of
bandlimited and white noise signals. This leads naturally to the sampling process which
takes a continuous-time signal and produces a corresponding discrete-time signal. Sim-
ple conditions are presented that ensure that an analog signal can be reconstructed from
its samples. When these conditions are violated, a phenomenon called aliasing occurs.
The use of guard filters to reduce the effects of aliasing is discussed. Next DSP hard-
ware in the form of analog-to-digital converters (ADCs) and digital-to-analog converters
(DACs) is examined. The hardware discussion includes ways to model the quantization
error associated with finite precision converters. A menu-based graphical user interface
DSP Companion (GUI) program called the DSP Companion is introduced that provides direct access to
an extensive set of supplementary course materials. The DSP Companion allows the stu-
dent and the instructor to run and view chapter GUI modules, PowerPoint lecture slides,
examples, figures, tables, definitions, propositions, algorithms, and selected problem solu-
GUI modules tions that appear throughout the text. The GUI modules can be used to interactively
explore the digital signal processing techniques covered in each chapter without any need
for programming. For example, in this chapter GUI module g_sample allows the user to
investigate the sampling of continuous-time signals including aliasing and quantization
effects. The module g_reconstruct then allows the user to explore the reconstruction of
continuous-time signals from their samples. The chapter concludes with a case study
example, and a summary of signal sampling and reconstruction.
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
1.1 Motivation 5
x(k). The processing of x(k) is then achieved with an algorithm that is implemented in
software. For a filtering operation, the DSP algorithm consists of a difference equation,
but other types of processing are also possible and are often used. The digital output sig-
nal y(k) is then converted back to an equivalent analog signal ya(t) by the digital-to-analog
converter or DAC.
Although the DSP approach requires more steps than analog signal processing, there
are many important benefits to working with signals in digital form. A comparison of the
relative advantages and disadvantages of the two approaches is summarized in Table 1.1.
The primary advantages of analog signal processing are speed and cost. Digital sig-
nal processing is not as fast due to the limits on the sampling rates of the converter
circuits. In addition, if substantial computations are to be performed between samples,
then the clock rate of the processor also can be a limiting factor. Speed can be an issue
Real time in real-time applications where the kth output sample y(k) must be computed and sent to
the DAC as soon as possible after the kth input sample x(k) is available from the ADC.
Latency The delay is sometimes referred to as latency. However, there are also applications where
the entire input signal is available ahead of time for processing off-line. For this batch
mode type of processing, speed is less critical.
DSP hardware is often somewhat more expensive than analog hardware because
analog hardware can consist of as little as a few discrete components on a stand-alone
printed circuit board. The cost of DSP hardware varies depending on the performance
characteristics required. In some cases, a PC may already be available to perform other
functions for a given application, and in these instances the marginal expense of adding
DSP hardware is not large.
In spite of these limitations, there are great benefits to using DSP techniques. Indeed,
DSP is superior to analog processing with respect to virtually all of the remaining fea-
tures listed in Table 1.1. One of the most important advantages is the inherent flexibility
available with a software implementation. Whereas an analog circuit might be tuned with
a potentiometer to vary its performance over a limited range, a DSP algorithm can be
completely replaced, on the fly, when circumstance warrant. DSP also offers considerably
higher performance than analog signal processing. For example, digital filters with arbi-
trary magnitude responses and linear phase responses can be designed easily whereas this
is not feasible with analog filters.
A common problem that plagues analog systems is the fact that the component val-
ues tend to drift with age and with changes in environmental conditions such as temper-
ature. This leads to a need for periodic calibration or tuning. With DSP there is no drift
problem and therefore no need to manually recalibrate.
Since data are already available in digital form in a DSP system, with little or no addi-
tional expense one can log the data associated with the operation of the system so that its
performance can be monitored, either locally or remotely over a network connection. If
an unusual operating condition is detected, its exact time and nature can be determined,
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
6 Chapter 1 Signal Processing
and a higher-level control system can be alerted. Although strip chart recorders can be
added to an analog system, this substantially increases the expense thereby negating one
of its potential advantages.
The flexibility inherent in software can be exploited by having the parameters of the
DSP algorithm vary with time and adapt as the characteristics of the input signal or the
processing task change. Applications, like system identification and active noise control,
exploit adaptive signal processing, a topic that is addressed in Chapter 9.
The presence of the additional harmonics indicates that there is distortion in the amplified
signal due to nonlinearities within the amplifier. For example, if the amplifier is driven
with an input whose amplitude a is too large, then the amplifier will saturate with the
result that the output is a clipped sine wave that sounds distorted when played through
a speaker. To quantify the amount of distortion, the average power contained in the ith
Average power harmonic is d 2i y2 for i $ 1 and d 2i y4 for i 5 0. Thus the average power of the signal ya(t) is
d 20 1 M21 2
Py 5
4
1
2 i51
di o (1.1.4)
Total harmonic The total harmonic distortion or THD of the output signal ya(t) is defined as the
distortion power in the spurious harmonic components, expressed as a percentage of the total
power. Thus the following can be used to measure the quality of the amplifier output.
D 100(Py 2 d12y2)
THD 5 % (1.1.5)
Py
Figure 1.3: An
Audio Amplifier
xa(t) K ya(t)
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
1.1 Motivation 7
d1 5 Ka (1.1.6a)
1 5 22F0 (1.1.6b)
Consequently, for a high-quality amplifier, the THD is small, and when no distortion
is present THD 5 0. Suppose the amplifier output is sampled to produce the following
digital signal of length N 5 2M.
y(k) 5 ya(kT ), 0 # k , N (1.1.7)
If the sampling interval is set to T 5 1y(NF0), then this corresponds to one period of
ya(t). By processing the digital signal x(k) with something called the discrete Fourier
transform or DFT, it is possible to determine di and i for 0 # i , M. In this way the total
harmonic distortion can be measured. The DFT is a key analytic tool that is introduced
in Chapter 4.
The filter in (1.1.8) is a notch filter with a bandwidth of 4 Hz, a notch frequency of
Fn 5 120 Hz, and a sampling frequency of fs 5 1280 Hz. A plot of the frequency response
of this filter is shown in Figure 1.4 where a sharp notch at 120 Hz is apparent. Notice
that except for frequencies very close to Fn, all other frequency components of x(k) are
passed through the filter without attenuation. The design of notch filters is discussed in
Chapter 7.
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
8 Chapter 1 Signal Processing
0.8
A(f )
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
f (Hz)
The purpose of the reference microphone in Figure 1.5 is to detect the primary noise
x(k) generated by the noise source or blower. The primary noise signal is then passed
through a digital filter of the following form.
m
y(k) 5 o w (k)x(k 2 i )
i50
i (1.1.9)
The output of the filter y(k) drives a speaker that creates the secondary sound, some-
Antisound times called antisound. The error microphone, located downstream of the speaker,
detects the sum of the primary and secondary sounds and produces an error signal e(k).
The objective of the adaptive algorithm is to take x(k) and e(k) as inputs and adjust the
filter weights w(k) so as to drive e2(k) to zero. If zero error can be achieved, then silence
is observed at the error microphone. In practical systems, the error or residual sound is
significantly reduced by active noise control.
To illustrate the operation of this adaptive DSP system, suppose the blower noise is
modeled as a periodic signal with fundamental frequency F0 and r harmonics plus some
random white noise v(k).
r
x(k) 5 o a cos(2ikF T 1 ) 1 v(k), 0 # k , p
i51
i 0 i (1.1.10)
y(k)
x(k) e(k)
Controller
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
1.1 Motivation 9
e2(k) 50
40
30
20
10
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
k
For example, suppose F0 5 100 Hz and there are r 5 4 harmonics with amplitudes
ai 5 1yi and random phase angles. Suppose the random white noise term is distributed
uniformly over the interval f2.5, .5g. Let p 5 2048 samples, and suppose the sampling
interval is T 5 1y1600 s and the filter order is m 5 40. The adaptive algorithm used to
adjust the filter weights is called the FXLMS method, and it is discussed in detail in
Chapter 9. The results of applying this algorithm are shown in Figure 1.6.
Initially the filter weights are set to w(0) 5 0, which corresponds to no noise control
at all. The adaptive algorithm is not activated until sample k 5 512, so the first quarter
of the plot in Figure 1.6 represents the ambient or primary noise detected at the error
microphone. When adaptation is activated, the error begins to decrease rapidly, and after
a short transient period it reaches a steady-state level that is more than an order of mag-
nitude quieter than the primary noise itself. We can quantify the noise reduction by using
the following measure of overall noise cancellation.
1o 2 1 o e (i)2
py421 p21
E 5 10 log10 e2(i) 2 10 log10 2
dB (1.1.11)
i50 i53py4
The overall noise cancellation E is the log of the ratio of the average power of the noise
during the first quarter of the samples divided by the average power of the noise during
the last quarter of the samples, expressed in units of decibels. Using this measure, the
noise cancellation observed in Figure 1.6 is E 5 32.1 dB.
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
10 Chapter 1 Signal Processing
An important theoretical and practical question that arises in connection with the
sampling process is this. Under what conditions do the samples x(k) contain all the
information needed to reconstruct the signal xa(t)? The Shannon sampling theorem
says that if the signal xa(t) is bandlimited and the sampling rate fs is greater than twice
the bandwidth or highest frequency present, then it is possible to interpolate between
the x(k) to precisely reconstruct xa(t). However, if the sampling frequency is too low,
Aliasing then the samples become corrupted, a process known as aliasing. An interesting way
to illustrate aliasing is to examine a video signal in the form of an M 3 N image Ia(t)
that varies with time. Here Ia(t) consists of an M 3 N array of picture elements or
Pixels pixels, where the number of rows M and columns N depends on the video format
used. If Ia(t) is sampled with a sampling interval of T then the resulting discrete-time
signal is
Here fs 5 1yT is the sampling rate in frames per second. Depending on the content of the
image, the sampling rate fs may or may not be sufficiently high to avoid aliasing.
As a simple illustration, suppose the image consists of a rotating disk with a dark line
on it to indicate orientation as shown in Figure 1.7. A casual look at the sequence of frames
in Figure 1.7 suggests that the disk appears to be rotating counterclockwise at a rate of
45 degrees per frame. However, this is not the only interpretation possible. For exam-
ple, an alternative explanation is that the disk is actually rotating clockwise at a rate of
315 degrees/frame. Both interpretations are plausible. Is the motion captured by the
snapshots a fast clockwise rotation or a slow counter clockwise rotation? If the disk
is in fact rotating clockwise at F0 revolutions/s but the sampling rate is fs # 2F0, then
aliasing occurs in which case the disk can appear to turn backwards at a slow rate.
Interestingly, this manifestation of aliasing was quite common in older western films
that featured wagon trains heading west. The spokes on the wagon wheels sometimes
appeared to move backwards because of the slow frame rate used to shoot the film and
display it on older TVs.
25 25
25 0 5 25 0 5
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
1.2 Signals and Systems 11
2.5
xa(t)
1.5
0.5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
t (sec)
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
12 Chapter 1 Signal Processing
2.5
x(k)
1.5 T 5 .25
0.5
0
0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
kT (sec)
Just as the independent variable can be continuous or discrete, so can the dependent vari-
able or amplitude of the signal be continuous or discrete. If the number of bits of precision
Quantized signal used to represent the value of x(k) is finite, then we say that x(k) is a quantized or discrete-am-
plitude signal. For example, if N bits are used to represent the value of x(k), then there are
2N distinct values that x(k) can assume. Suppose the value of x(k) ranges over the interval
Quantization level fxm, xMg. Then the quantization level, or spacing between adjacent discrete values of x(k), is
xM 2 xm
q5 (1.2.3)
2N
The quantization process can be thought of as passing a signal through a piecewise-
constant staircase type function. For example, if the quantization is based on rounding to the
Quantization operator nearest N bits, then the process can be represented with the following quantization operator.
1q2
D x
QN (x) 5 q ? round (1.2.4)
A graph of QN(x) for x ranging over the interval f21, 1g using N 5 5 bits is shown in
Digital signal Figure 1.10. A quantized discrete-time signal is called a digital signal. That is, a digital
signal, xq(k), is discrete in both time and amplitude with
xq(k) 5 QN fxa(kT )g (1.2.5)
Analog signal By contrast, a signal that is continuous in both time and amplitude is called an analog
signal. An example of a digital signal obtained by quantizing the amplitude of the dis-
crete-time signal in Figure 1.9 is shown in Figure 1.11. In this case, the 5-bit quantizer
in Figure 1.10 is used to produce xq(k). Careful inspection of Figure 1.11 reveals that at
some of the samples there are noticeable differences between xq(k) and xa(kT). If round-
ing is used, then the magnitude of the error is, at most, qy2.
Most of the analysis in this book will be based on discrete-time signals rather than
digital signals. That is, infinite precision is used to represent the value of the dependent
variable. Finite precision, or finite word length effects, are examined in Chapters 6 and 7
in the context of digital filter design. When digital filters are implemented in MATLAB
using the default double-precision arithmetic, this corresponds to 64 bits of precision
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
1.2 Signals and Systems 13
Figure 1.10: 1
Quantization over 0.8
fxm, xMg 5 f21,1g
Using N 5 5 Bits 0.6
q 5 .0625
0.4
0.2
Q(x) 0
20.2
20.4
20.6
20.8
21
21 20.8 20.6 20.420.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x
(16 decimal digits). In most instances this is sufficiently high precision to yield insignifi-
cant finite word length effects.
A digital signal xq(k) can be modeled as a discrete-time signal x(k) plus random
Quantization noise quantization noise, v(k), as follows.
An effective way to measure the size or strength of the quantization noise is to use aver-
Expected value age power defined as the mean, or expected value, of v2(k). Typically, v(k) is modeled as
a random variable uniformly distributed over the interval f2qy2, qy2g with probability
3.5
2.5
xq(k)
2
T 5 .25
1.5 q 5 .125
N 5 5 bits
1
0.5
0
0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
kT (sec)
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
14 Chapter 1 Signal Processing
qy2
1
5
q #2qy2
x2dx (1.2.7)
Thus the average power of the quantization noise is proportional to the square of the
quantization level with
q2
E fv2g 5 (1.2.8)
12
E X AM P LE 1. 1 Quantization Noise
Suppose the value of a discrete-time signal x(k) is constrained to lie in the interval
f210, 10g. Let xq(k) denote a digital version of x(k) using quantization level q,
and consider the following problem. Suppose the average power of the quantiza-
tion noise, v(k), is to be less than .001. What is the minimum number of bits that
are needed to represent the value of xq(k)? The constraint on the average power
of the quantization noise is
E fv2g , .001
Thus from (1.2.3) and (1.2.8) we have
(xM 2 xm)2
, .001
12(2N)2
Recall that the signal range is xm 5 210 and xM 5 10. Multiplying both sides by
12, taking the square root of both sides, and then solving for 2N yields
20
2N .
Ï.012
Finally, taking the natural log of both sides and solving for N we have
ln (182.5742)
N. 5 7.5123
ln (2)
Since N must be an integer, the minimum number of bits needed to ensure that
the average power of the quantization noise is less than .001 is N 5 8 bits.
The relationship between the four basic signal types is summarized in Table 1.2.
Signals can be further classified depending on whether or not they are nonzero for nega-
tive values of the independent variable, time.
DEFiNiTioN A signal xa(t) defined for t [ R is causal if and only if it is zero for negative t. Other-
wise, the signal is noncausal.
1.1 Causal Signal
xa(t) 5 0 for t , 0
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
1.2 Signals and Systems 15
Most of the signals that we work with will be causal signals. A simple, but important,
Unit step example of a causal signal is the unit step, which is denoted a(t) and defined
a(t) 5
D
50,1, t,0
t$0
(1.2.9)
Note that any signal can be made into a causal signal by multiplying by the unit step. For
example, xa(t) 5 exp(2ty)a(t) is a causal decaying exponential with time constant .
Unit impulse Another important example of a causal signal is the unit impulse, which is denoted a(t).
Strictly speaking, the unit impulse is not a function, because it is not defined at t 5 0.
However, the unit impulse can be defined implicitly by the equation
t
#2`
a()d 5 a(t) (1.2.10)
That is, the unit impulse a(t) is a signal that, when integrated, produces the unit step a(t).
Consequently, we can loosely think of the unit impulse as the derivative of the unit step
function, keeping in mind that the derivative of the unit step is not defined at t 5 0. The
two essential characteristics of the unit impulse that follow from (1.2.10) are
a(t) 5 0, t Þ 0 (1.2.11a)
`
# 2`
a(t)dt 5 1 (1.2.11b)
A more informal way to view the unit impulse is to consider a narrow pulse of width
and height 1y starting at t 5 0. The unit impulse can be thought of as the limit of a
sequence of pulses as the pulse width goes to zero. By convention, we graph the unit
impulse as a vertical arrow with the height of the arrow equal to the strength, or area, of
the impulse, as shown in Figure 1.12.
The unit impulse has an important property that is a direct consequence of (1.2.11).
If xa(t) is a continuous function, then
` `
# 2`
xa()a( 2 t0)d 5 #2`
xa(t0)a( 2 t0)d
`
5 xa(t0) # 2`
a( 2 t0)d
`
5 xa(t0) # 2`
a()d (1.2.12)
Sifting property Since the area under the unit impulse is one, we then have the following sifting property
of the unit impulse
`
# 2`
xa (t)a (t 2 t0)dt 5 xa (t0) (1.2.13)
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
16 Chapter 1 Signal Processing
0.5 a(t)
20.5
22 21.5 21 20.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
t (sec)
From (1.2.13) we see that when a continuous function of time is multiplied by an impulse
and then integrated, the effect is to sift out or sample the value of the function at the time
the impulse occurs.
DEFiNiTioN Let x1 and x2 be arbitrary inputs and let a and b be arbitrary scalars. A system S is
linear if and only if the following holds; otherwise it is a nonlinear system.
1.2 Linear System
S(ax1 1 bx2) 5 aSx1 1 bSx2
Figure 1.13: A
System S with
Input x and x S y
Output y
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
1.2 Signals and Systems 17
Thus a linear system has two distinct characteristics. When a 5 b 5 1, we see that the
response to a sum of inputs is just the sum of the responses to the individual inputs. Sim-
ilarly, when b 5 0, we see that the response to a scaled input is just the scaled response
to the original input. Examples of linear discrete-time systems include the notch filter in
(1.1.8) and the adaptive filter in (1.1.9). On the other hand, if the analog audio amplifier
in Figure 1.3 is overdriven and its output saturates to produce harmonics as in (1.1.3),
then this is an example of a nonlinear continuous-time system. Another important class
of systems is time-invariant systems.
DEFiNiTioN A system S with input xa(t) and output ya(t) is time-invariant if and only if whenever
the input is translated in time by , the output is also translated in time by . Other-
1.3 Time-invariant System
wise the system is a time-varying system.
Sxa(t 2 ) 5 ya(t 2 )
For a time-invariant system, delaying or advancing the input delays or advances the
output by the same amount, but it does not otherwise affect the shape of the output.
Therefore the results of an input-output experiment do not depend on when the experi-
ment is performed. Time-invariant systems described by differential or difference equa-
tions have constant coefficients. More generally, physical time-invariant systems have
constant parameters. The notch filter in (1.1.8) is an example of a discrete-time system
that is both linear and time-invariant. On the other hand, the adaptive digital filter in
(1.1.9) is a time-varying system, because the weights w(k) are coefficients that change
with time as the system adapts. The following example shows that the concepts of linear-
ity and time-invariance can sometimes depend on how the system is characterized.
E X AM PL E 1. 2 System Classification
Consider the operational amplifier circuit shown in Figure 1.14. Here input resistor
R1 is fixed, but feedback resistor R2 represents a sensor or transducer whose resis-
tance changes with respect to a sensed environmental variable such as temperature
or pressure. For this inverting amplifier configuration, the output voltage ya(t) is
3 R 4 x (t)
R2(t)
ya(t) 5 2 1
1
(Continued )
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
18 Chapter 1 Signal Processing
DEFiNiTioN A system S is with input xa(t) and output ya(t) is stable, in a bounded input bounded
output (BIBO) sense, if and only if every bounded input produces a bounded output.
1.4 Stable System
Otherwise it is an unstable system.
Thus an unstable system is a system for which the magnitude of the output grows arbi-
trarily large with time for a least one bounded input.
E X AM P LE 1. 3 Stability
Just as light can be decomposed into a spectrum of colors, signals also contain energy
that is distributed over a range of frequencies. To decompose a continuous-time signal
Fourier transform xa(t) into its spectral components, we use the Fourier transform.
`
Xa( f ) 5 FT hxa(t)j 5
D
# 2`
xa(t) exp(2j2ft)dt (1.2.16)
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content
which I voted for the increase of the army and navy have passed
away; and as our revenue has diminished, I shall vote for a reduction
of our expenses.... So far from considering the country in a deplorable
situation, as my colleague (Mr. Randolph) has represented it, I think
that in many points of view we have every reason to congratulate
ourselves. It is a singular phenomenon to see any nation enjoying
peace at this time. This exemption from the general lot claims the
gratitude of every man in the country. So far as I am concerned in the
affairs of the nation, I have but a single object in view,—namely, to
preserve peace; and my votes are predicated on that ground.”
The war men voted with the peace men for reasons given by
Troup of Georgia:[150]—
“I am as well convinced of the fact as that I am now addressing
you, that the people will not consent to pay an additional tax for the
support of armies and navies raised to oppose the injurious acts of
the belligerents against our rights, after we have abandoned those
rights and dishonorably withdrawn from the contest.”
After much contradictory talk of this kind, Nelson of Maryland
told the House that they were behaving like schoolboys.
“It is a perfect child’s game,” said he.[151] “At one session we pass
a law for raising an army, and go to expense; in another year, instead
of raising money to pay the expense by the means in our power, we
are to disband the army we have been at so much pains to raise. We
shall well deserve the name of children instead of men if we pursue a
policy of this kind.”
The warning had no perceptible weight with the House, where
the peace party were in a majority and the war party were in a
passion, not with the foreign enemy, but with their neighbors and
friends. Richard M. Johnson almost avowed that he should vote for
reducing army and navy in order to punish the men who had made
them useless:—
“To our humiliation and everlasting degradation we have refused
to use the means in our power to induce foreign nations to do us
justice.... The annals of human nature have not given to the world the
sad example of a nation so powerful, so free, so intelligent, so jealous
of their rights and at the same time so grossly insulted, so materially
injured, under such extraordinary forbearance.... We are afraid to
trust ourselves, and we pretend that we are afraid to trust the people.
My hopes have rested and always will rest upon the people; they
constitute my last hope. We may disgrace ourselves, but the people
will rise in the majesty of their strength, and the world will be
interested in the spectacle.”
With the advocates of war in a temper so unmanageable, and
the advocates of peace in a majority so decisive, the House showed
unanimity by passing in committee, without a dissenting voice, a
Resolution that the military and naval establishments ought to be
reduced. April 16 this vote was reached in committee; and the next
day, by a vote of sixty to thirty-one, the Resolution was formally
adopted by the House. Of the minority, two thirds were Northern
men and all were Republicans.
In obedience to the order, Randolph promptly reported a bill for
reducing the navy.[152] All the gunboats, all but three of the frigates,
and all other armed vessels—three only excepted—were to be sold,
their officers and crews discharged; the navy-yards, except at
Boston, New York, and Norfolk, to be disused, and the marine corps
reduced to two companies. A few days later, April 24, Smilie of
Pennsylvania reported a bill for a similar reduction of the military
establishment to three regiments. These measures seemed to carry
out the express will and orders of the House; but no sooner did the
House go into committee than the members astonished themselves
by striking out each section in succession. Gunboats, frigates, navy-
yards, and marines, each managed in turn to obtain a majority
against reduction.
Then Randolph rose,—not in wrath, for he spoke with unusual
calm, but with a force which warranted the sway he so often
exercised over men whose minds were habitually in doubt. He had
ever believed, he said, that the people of the United States were
destined to become a great naval power, but if anything could
prevent this result it would be the premature attempts of the last
two Administrations to force it. A naval power necessarily grew out
of tonnage and seamen, but both tonnage and seamen had been
systematically discouraged:—
“It has always been understood, according to my view of the
subject, that one of the principal uses of a navy was to protect
commerce; but our political rule for some time past has been that of
inverse proportion, and we have discovered that commerce is the
natural protector of a navy.”
The inconsistency of Jefferson’s principles and practice was a
target which could be hit by the most inexperienced marksman, but
Randolph struck it with something more solid than an epigram when
he discussed its expense.
“Against the administration of Mr. Adams,” he said, “I, in common
with many others, did and do yet entertain a sentiment of hostility,
and have repeatedly cried out against it for extravagance and for
profusion and for waste—wanton waste—of the public resources. I
find, however, upon consideration,—whether from the nature of men,
or from the nature of things, or from whatever other cause,—that that
Administration, grossly extravagant as I did then and still do believe it
to have been, if tried by the criterion of the succeeding one, was a
pattern of retrenchment and economy.”
In order to prove this charge he attacked Robert Smith’s
administration of the navy, asserting that while in 1800 each seaman
cost about four hundred and seventy-two dollars a year, in 1808
each seaman cost nearly nine hundred dollars a year; and that the
same excess existed in regard to officers, marines, clothing, and
provisions:—
“Yes, sir! we have economized until we absolutely have reduced
the annual cost of a seaman from $472—as it was under the very
wasteful expenditure of Mr. Adams’s administration—down to the
moderate sum of $887. We have economized until a paltry fleet
consisting of vessels built to our hand, to say nothing of those that
have been sold, and the warlike stores of which have been retained
and preserved,—which fleet was built, equipped, and every cannon
and implement of war purchased under the old Administration,—has
cost us twelve million dollars, when it cost the preceding
Administration but nine millions.”
Only one member replied on behalf of the Government to these
criticisms. Burwell Bassett of the naval committee ventured
somewhat timidly to defend, not so much Robert Smith as Secretary
Hamilton, who, he said, had reduced expenses at the navy-yard
about one third. Most of the frigates had been so thoroughly
repaired as to be more valuable than when first built. In the navy-
yard itself everything was in good condition and well conducted.
Bassett’s testimony hardly met Randolph’s charges, but the House
sustained him on every point; and Boyd of New Jersey so far forgot
the respect due to a former vote, in which the House had resolved
by a majority of two to one that the army and navy ought to be
reduced, as to say that never since the government was formed had
so preposterous a proposition been offered. The end of the session
arrived before the discussion ceased.
The same inability to act, even where no apparent obstacle
existed, was shown in regard to the United States Bank, whose
charter, granted for twenty years by the First Congress in February,
1791, was to expire March 4, 1811. In the days of Federalist sway
the Republicans had bitterly opposed the Bank and denied the
constitutional power of Congress to grant the charter; but during the
eight years of Jefferson’s rule the Bank had continued without a
question to do the financial work of government, and no other
agency existed or could be readily created capable of taking the
place of this machine, which, unlike any other in the government,
worked excellently well.
If its existence was to be continued, public interest required that
the Act should be passed at this session, since the actual charter
was to expire in ten months. If a new charter was to be refused,
public interest required even more urgently that ample warning of so
radical a change should be given, that the Treasury might not be
suddenly crippled or general bankruptcy be risked without notice.
No complaint of any kind was at that time made against the
Bank; no charge was brought against it of interference in politics, of
corrupt influence, or of mismanagement. Gallatin was known to
favor it; the President was not hostile, nor was any influence in the
government opposed; the Federalists who had created were bound
to support it; and except for the principles of some Southern
Republicans who regarded functions of government as germs of
despotism, every political faction in the country seemed consenting
to the charter. January 29 the subject was referred to a special
committee. The committee reported a Resolution, and in due course
John Taylor of South Carolina brought in a bill, the result of
negotiations between the Treasury and the Bank, granting a new
charter on condition that the Bank should increase its capital two-
and-a-half million dollars, half of which should be paid outright to
the government; that, further, the Bank should bind itself to lend the
government at three months’ notice any amount not exceeding in
the whole five million dollars at a rate not exceeding six per cent;
that on all government deposits above the sum of three millions,
which should remain for one year, the Bank should pay interest at
the rate of three per cent; and that the government should have the
right at any time to increase the capital stock, and subscribe and
own the new stock to a fixed amount. These terms were especially
valuable at the moment, because they assisted the Treasury to meet
an actual deficit, and provided, as far as human foresight went, for
financial dangers that might rise from further foreign troubles. No
serious opposition showed itself. April 21 the House, by a majority of
seventy-five to thirty-five, voted to accept the price fixed for the
charter; but the session closed without further action.
When Congress adjourned, May 2, 1810, the result attained
during five months passed in continuous labor amounted to little
more than the constitutional necessities of government,—the
appropriation bills; a loan for five million dollars; an Act for taking a
census of persons; an Act appropriating sixty thousand dollars
toward making the Cumberland Road; an appropriation of five
thousand dollars for experiments on Fulton’s torpedoes; in regard to
foreign affairs, Giles’s Resolution blaming the conduct of the British
minister, and Macon’s or Taylor’s Act, which condoned that conduct.
The old Non-intercourse Act of March 1, 1809, expired by limitation
with the expiring Congress May 1, 1810.
“We adjourned last night,” wrote Randolph to Nicholson the next
day,[153] “a little after twelve, having terminated a session of more
than five months by authorizing a loan of as many millions, and—all is
told. The incapacity of Government has long ceased to be a laughing
matter. The Cabinet is all to pieces, and the two Houses have tumbled
about their own ears.”
With all Randolph’s faults, he had more of the qualities, training,
and insight of a statesman than were to be found elsewhere among
the representatives in the Eleventh Congress; and although himself
largely the cause of the chaos he described, he felt its disgraces and
dangers. Society in general troubled itself little about them. The
commercial class, pleased to be freed from restraints, and the
agricultural class, consoled by the fair prices of their produce,
thought as little as possible about their failure in government; what
was called good society for the most part drew a bitter pleasure
from it. Yet beneath the general physical contentment almost equally
general moral disgust existed and made itself felt. President
Madison, who was in the best position to gauge popular opinion,
began to suspect the hardly perceptible movement of a coming tide.
After the adjournment he wrote to William Pinkney at London:[154]—
“Among the inducements to the experiment of an unrestricted
commerce now made were two which contributed essentially to the
majority of votes in its favor,—first, a general hope, favored by daily
accounts from England, that an adjustment of differences there, and
thence in France, would render the measure safe and proper; second,
a willingness in not a few to teach the advocates for an open trade
the folly as well as degradation of their policy.... It will not be
wonderful, therefore, if the passive spirit which marked the late
session of Congress should at the next meeting be roused to the
opposite point, more especially as the tone of the nation has never
been so low as that of its representatives.”
Madison still held to his favorite doctrine, and meant no more by
his warning than that the Eleventh Congress might be expected to
reimpose measures of commercial restriction:—
“The experiment [of free commerce] about to be made will
probably open too late the eyes of the people to the expediency and
efficacy of the means [the embargo] which they have suffered to be
taken out of the hands of the Government and to be incapacitated for
future use.”[155]
This condolence with Jefferson over the fate of their experiment
showed the direction toward which Madison’s eyes were still turned;
but, though a firm believer in his own theory of peaceable coercion,
he was ready and had always been ready to accept and carry out
any stronger scheme that Congress might prefer. He had no definite
plan of his own; he clung to the idea that England and France could
be brought by patience to respect neutral claims of right; but he felt
that the actual submission made by Congress was apparent rather
than real, and might be followed within a year by renewed
resistance.
Meanwhile nothing could be more dangerous to the Americans
than the loss of self-respect. The habit of denouncing themselves as
cowards and of hearing themselves denounced as a race that cared
only for money tended to produce the qualities imputed. Americans
of 1810 were persuaded that they could not meet Englishmen or
Frenchmen on equal terms, man against man, or stand in battle
against the veterans of Napoleon or Nelson. The sense of national
and personal inferiority sank astonishingly deep. Reasonable enough
as regarded the immense superiority of Europe in organization, it
passed bounds when it condemned everything American as
contemptible, or when the Federalist gentry refused to admit the
Democrats of Pennsylvania or the Republicans of Virginia or the
Government at Washington into the circle of civilized life. Social self-
abasement never went so far as in its efforts to prove to Francis
James Jackson, the British minister, that he was right in treating the
national government with contempt. Englishman as Jackson was,
and ready to assume without question every claim of superiority that
might be made for his country or his class, he was surprised at the
force of American allegiance to himself. As he travelled northward,
after his dismissal from Washington, his private letters gave a
strange idea of the chaos in American society. He wrote from
Philadelphia,—
“The tide has turned completely in our favor. At Washington they
are in a state of the most animated confusion, the Cabinet divided,
and the Democratic party going various ways.... Their foreign politics
embarrass them even more than home ones. One moment they want
another embargo; the next, to take off the restrictions; then, to arm
their merchantmen; and next, to declare war. In short, they do not
know what to be at.... Notwithstanding all that has passed,—which
would fill volumes to relate in full,—and the Government being at
open war with me, ‘the respectability’ has been both here and at
Baltimore so anxious to show that they did not share the sentiments
of the Democrats that we have had throngs of visitors and
innumerable invitations that we could not accept, though we have
dined at home but twice during the month we have been here. To
prevent this, the savages have threatened in one of their papers to tar
and feather every man who should ask me to his house.”[156]
At the public dinner given to Jackson June 11, after the guest of
the evening had retired, Senator Pickering gave a toast which
became a party cry: “The world’s last hope,—Britain’s fast-anchored
isle!”[159]
From the moment the State officials withdrew from the reception,
little importance attached to the private acts of a society which
might easily look with interest at the rare appearance of a British
minister in Boston; but the political and social feeling was the same
as though Governor Gore were still in power, and created natural
disgust among Republicans, who believed that their Federalist
opponents aimed at a dissolution of the Union and at a retreat
within the protection of Great Britain. If such ideas existed, they
showed themselves to Jackson in no recorded form. His visit to
Boston was a social amusement; and he regarded it, like the conduct
of Congress, as a triumph to himself only because it increased the
mortifications of President Madison, which counterbalanced in some
degree his own want of energetic support from Canning’s successor
at the Foreign Office.
The history of Jackson and his mission did not quite end with his
departure from Boston in June, 1810, under escort of a mounted
procession of Boston Federalists. He thence went to Niagara,—a
difficult journey; and descending to Montreal and Quebec, returned
to Albany, where he had the unusual experience of seeing himself
burned in effigy.
During all these wanderings he was a victim to the constant
annoyance of being able to quarrel neither with President Madison
nor with his new official chief, who showed a wish to quarrel as little
as possible. Jackson was as willing to find fault with one Government
as with the other.
“I look forward with full confidence,” he wrote to his brother,[160]
“for a full approbation of what I have done. Ministers cannot
disapprove of though they may be sorry for it; and if they are sorry, it
must be for the trouble it occasions them, for as I have told them
there is no loss of any adjustment of difficulties, that being
impracticable with this country upon the principles of my instructions.
I hope they are adopting the line that I recommended to them,—that
of procrastinating any decision whatever; but they might as well have
told me so for my own guidance and information, instead of leaving
me a prey to all the lies and misrepresentations which the Democrats
have found it necessary to propagate on the subject for election
purposes. It would be an absolute disgrace to the country, and would
produce an impression never to be got over here,—the ill effects of
which in all future transactions we should not fail to be made sensible
of,—if another minister were to be sent out without some sort of
satisfaction being taken or received for the treatment I have
experienced. They ought to insist on my being reinstated.”
The British government held a different opinion; and accordingly,
at the expiration of his stipulated twelve months, Sept. 16, 1810,
Jackson set sail for Europe, leaving J. P. Morier in charge of the
British legation at Washington.
CHAPTER XI.
If the Non-intercourse Act of March 1, 1809, irritated Napoleon,
Macon’s Act of May 1, 1810, might be expected to work in a manner
still more active.
The story has shown that Napoleon, toward the end of the year
1809, felt many difficulties in giving new shape to his American
policy after it had been ruined by the Non-intercourse Act. His fixed
idea required the seizure of every American ship in Europe beyond
the borders of France, as he had for years seized American ships in
his own ports. In part this wish sprang from the Continental system,
and was excused to some extent by the plea that American
commerce could be carried on only under British protection; in part
the seizure of American ships was a punishment for defying the
Emperor’s orders; and in part it was due to his necessities of
finance.
December 19, 1809, Napoleon wrote a brief order to Berthier,
ordering the seizure of all American vessels in the Spanish ports
within his control;[161] vessels and cargoes, he said, were to be
considered good prize. Having taken this measure, he called a
council of ministers for the next day, and ordered Maret to bring
there “everything relating to the judgments of the prize-court; to the
merchandise sequestered in the ports, which is spoiling. If you have
not all the information, ask the Minister of Finance.”[162]
The meaning of this preparation was to be sought in the Cabinet
itself, and in the Emperor’s surroundings. Peace with Austria left
many vexations in Napoleon’s path. Perhaps the unhappy situation of
his brother Joseph at Madrid troubled him less than the difficulty of
reconciling the Empress Josephine to a divorce, or the mortifications
of negotiating for a wife among Russian, German, and Austrian
princesses; but annoyances like these, though serious for ordinary
men, could not be compared with the constant trouble created by
the Continental system of commercial restrictions and the want of
money it caused. Threatened with financial difficulties, and obliged
to study economies as well as to press contributions of war, the
Emperor found himself met by something resembling opposition
among his own ministers. As was his habit, he yielded at first to the
advice he disliked, and promised to do something for French
industry. In November he appointed a new Minister of the Interior,
Montalivet, and lectured him on the slowness of his bureaus in
acting for the good of commerce.[163] From such a mouth such a
lesson startled the hearer, and Montalivet threw himself with zeal
into the prescribed work. To Fouché the Emperor read another
lecture compared with which the discourse to Montalivet was
commonplace. Fouché, a pronounced opponent of Napoleon’s
commercial restrictions, during the Emperor’s absence in Austria
distributed too freely his licenses for foreign trade: “I recognize
always the same course in your acts,” Napoleon wrote him. “You
have not enough legality in your head.”[164]
While thus teaching one minister to cherish commerce, and
another to respect legality, the Emperor listened to Champagny, who
lost no chance of advising the encouragement of neutral trade; and
these three ministers—Champagny, Fouché, and Montalivet—found a
strong ally in the Minister of the Treasury, Mollien, who has left the
recorded opinion that the Imperial system of commercial restriction
was “the most disastrous and the most false of fiscal
inventions.”[165] The bias of Decrès, the Minister of Marine, may be
inferred from a story told by Marshal Marmont,[166] who, coming to
Paris at the close of 1809, called on his old friend and talked with
the enthusiasm of a successful soldier about the Emperor. “Well,
Marmont,” replied Decrès, “you are pleased at being made a
marshal; you see everything in bright colors. Do you want me to tell
you the truth and to unveil the future? The Emperor is mad—
absolutely mad! He will upset us all, and everything will end in a
terrible disaster.” Taken in connection with King Louis’ attitude in
Holland, the Cabinet opposition of December, 1809, amounted to
rebellion against Napoleon’s authority.
At the Cabinet council of December 20 Montalivet made a written
report on the subject of American cotton, which threw so much
blame on the Imperial policy as to call a written contradiction from
Napoleon. “An American vessel,” the Emperor replied the next day,
[167] “coming from Louisiana to France will be well received here, no
act of the government forbidding the admission of American ships
into French ports.” The Americans, he explained, had prohibited
commerce with France while permitting it with Holland, Spain, and
Naples; and in consequence “his Majesty has used his right of
influence over his neighbors because he was unwilling that they
should be treated differently from France, and he has sequestered
the ships destined for their ports;” but no such provision had been
made against American ships entering French ports.
Naturally piqued at an Imperial assertion that he had shown
ignorance of facts that deeply concerned his department, Montalivet
sent to the Treasury for information, with which, a few days
afterward, he routed the Emperor from the field. Unable to answer
him, Napoleon referred his report to Gaudin, Minister of Finance,
with a curious marginal note, which showed—what his ministers
evidently believed—that the Emperor understood neither the
workings of his own system nor the laws of the United States:—
“Referred to the Minister of Finance to make me a report on this
question: (1) How is it conceivable that American ships come from
America in spite of the embargo? (2) How distinguish between ships
coming from America and those coming from London?”
Armstrong obtained immediate and accurate knowledge of this
struggle in council. Only a week after the Emperor wrote his note on
the margin of Montalivet’s report, Armstrong sent home a despatch
on the subject:[168]—
“The veil which for some weeks past has covered the proceedings
of the Cabinet with regard to neutral commerce is now so far
withdrawn as to enable us to see with sufficient distinctness both the
actors and the acting. The Ministers of Police and of the Interior
(Fouché and Montalivet) have come out openly and vigorously against
the present anti-commercial system, and have denounced it as ‘one
originating in error and productive only of evil, and particularly
calculated to impoverish France and enrich her enemy.’ While they
have held this language in the Cabinet they have held one of nearly
the same tenor out of it, and have added (we may suppose on
sufficient authority) the most solemn assurances that the Emperor
‘never meant to do more than to prevent the commerce of the United
States from becoming tributary to Great Britain; that a new decision
would soon be taken by him on this subject, and that from this the
happiest results were to be expected.’”
As though to prevent President Madison from showing undue
elation at this announcement for the fiftieth time that the happiest
results were to be expected from the future, Armstrong wrote
another letter, four days afterward,[169] on the new confiscations
and their cause. Frenchmen he said would reason thus: “There is a
deficit of fifty millions in the receipts of last year. This must be
supplied. Why not then put our hands into the pockets of your
citizens once more, since, as you continue to be embroiled with
Great Britain, we may do it with impunity.” Armstrong was angry,
and could not analyze to the bottom the Emperor’s methods or
motives. Thiers, in later years having the advantage of studying
Napoleon’s papers, understood better the nature of his genius. “To
admit false neutrals in order to confiscate them afterward, greatly
pleased his astute (rusé) mind,” wrote the French historian and
statesman,[170] “little scrupulous in the choice of means, especially
in regard to shameless smugglers who violated at once the laws of
their own country and those of the country that consented to admit
them.” This description could not properly be applied to Americans,
since they violated neither their own law nor that of France by
coming to Amsterdam, San Sebastian, and Naples; but Thiers
explained that the Emperor considered all Americans as smugglers,
and that he wrote to the Prussian government: “Let the American
ships enter your ports! Seize them afterward. You shall deliver the
cargoes to me, and I will take them in part payment of the Prussian
war-debt.”[171] Meanwhile the confiscation of American ships helped
in no way the objects promised by Napoleon to Montalivet and
Fouché. At a loss to invent a theory on which neutrals could be at
the same time plundered and encouraged, the Emperor referred the
subject to Champagny, January 10, in an interesting letter.[172] He
called for a complete history of his relations with the United States
since the treaty of Morfontaine. He ordered the recall of Turreau, in
whom he said he had little confidence, and who should be replaced
by a more adroit agent:—
“Have several conferences, if necessary, with the American
minister as well as with the Secretary of Legation who has just come
from London; in short, let me know your opinion on the measures
proper to be taken to get out of the position we are in (pour sortir de
la position où nous nous trouvons).”
“All the measures I have taken, as I have said several times, are
only measures of reprisal.... It was only to the new extension given to
the right of blockade that I opposed the Decree of Berlin; and even
the Decree of Berlin ought to be considered as a Continental, not as a
maritime blockade, for it has been carried out in that form. I regard it,
in some sort, only as a protest, and a violence opposed to a
violence.... Down to this point there was little harm. Neutrals still
entered our ports; but the British Orders in Council necessitated my
Milan Decree, and from that time there were no neutrals.... I am now
assured that the English have given way; that they no longer levy
taxes on ships. Let me know if there is an authentic act which
announces it, and if there is none, let me know if the fact is true; for
once I shall be assured that a tax on navigation will not be established
by England, I shall be able to give way on many points.”
All Napoleon’s ministers must have known that these assertions
of his commercial policy were invented for a momentary purpose. He
had himself often declared, and caused them to declare, that his
Continental system, established by the Berlin Decree and enforced
before the Orders in Council were issued, had a broad military
purpose quite independent of retaliation,—that it was aimed at the
destruction of England’s commerce and resources. As for his
profession of ignorance that England had abandoned her transit
duties on neutral merchandise, every minister was equally well
aware that only six months before, the Emperor had discussed with
them the measures to be taken in consequence of that
abandonment; had sent them the draft of a new decree founded
upon it, and had finally decided to do nothing only because England
had again quarrelled with America over Erskine’s arrangement. The
pretexts alleged by Napoleon were such as his ministers could not
have believed; but they were satisfied to obtain on any grounds the
concessions they desired, and Champagny—or as he was
thenceforward called, the Due de Cadore—sent to Armstrong for the
information the Emperor professed to want.
January 18, M. Petry, at the order of Cadore, called on the
American minister, and requested from him a written memorandum
expressing the demands of his Government. Armstrong drew up a
short minute of the provisions to be made the material of a treaty.
[173] The first Article required the restoration of sequestered
property; the next stipulated that any ship which had paid tribute to
a foreign Power should be liable to confiscation, but that with this
exception commerce should be free. Cadore sent this paper to the
Emperor, and within a few hours received a characteristic reply.
“You must see the American minister,” wrote Napoleon.[174] “It is
quite too ridiculous (par trop ridicule) that he should write things that
no one can comprehend. I prefer him to write in English, but fully and
in a manner that we can understand. [It is absurd] that in affairs so
important he should content himself with writing letters of four
lines.... Send by special courier a cipher despatch to America to let it
be understood that that government is not represented here; that its
minister does not know French; is a morose man with whom one
cannot treat; that all obstacles would be raised if they had here an
envoy to be talked with. Write in detail on this point.”
Petry returned to Armstrong with the condemned paper, and
received another, somewhat more elaborate, but hardly more
agreeable to the Emperor. January 25, Cadore himself sent for the
American minister, and discussed the subject. The Emperor, he said,
would not commit himself to the admission of colonial produce; he
wished to restrict American commerce to articles the growth or
manufacture of the two countries; he would not permit his neighbors
to carry on a commerce with America which he denied to himself;
but the “only condition required for the revocation by his Majesty of
the Decree of Berlin will be a previous revocation by the British
government of her blockade of France, or part of France (such as
the coast from the Elbe to Brest, etc.), of a date anterior to that of
the aforesaid decree; and if the British government would then recall
the Orders in Council which had occasioned the Decree of Milan, that
decree should also be annulled.” This pledge purported to come
directly from the Emperor, and at Armstrong’s request was repeated
in the Emperor’s exact words.[175]
Neither the Minister of the Interior, the Minister of the Treasury,
nor the Emperor in these discussions alluded to the proposed Decree
of Vienna, the draft of which was sent to Paris in August,
confiscating all American ships in reprisal for the seizures of French
ships threatened by the Non-intercourse Act. Although that decree
was the point which the Emperor meant to reach, not until January
25—when Champagny, after dismissing Armstrong, reported the
interview to Napoleon, bringing with him at the Emperor’s request
the text of the Non-intercourse Act—did the Emperor at last revert to
the ideas of the Vienna Decree. The long hesitation proved how little
satisfactory the plea of retaliation was; but no other excuse could be
devised for a measure which Napoleon insisted upon carrying out,
and which Champagny had no choice but to execute. The Emperor
dictated the draft of a note,[176] in which the principles of
confiscation were to be laid down:—
“If American ships have been sequestered in France, France only
imitates the example given her by the American government; and the
undersigned recalls to Mr. Armstrong the Act of Congress of March 1,
1809, which orders in certain cases the sequestration and confiscation
of French ships, excludes them from American ports, and interdicts
France to the Americans. It is in reprisal of this last provision that the
American ships have been seized in Spain and Naples. The league
against England, which has the cause of neutrals for its object,
embraces now all the Continental peoples, and permits none of them
to enjoy commercial advantages of which France is deprived. France
will permit it in no place where her influence extends; but she is ready
to grant every favor to the ships of a neutral Power which shall not
have subjected themselves to a tribute, and shall recognize only the
laws of their own country, not those of a foreign government.... If the
Minister of the United States has the power to conclude a convention
proper to attain the object indicated, the undersigned is ordered to
give all his care to it, and to occupy himself upon it without
interruption.”
Perhaps this was the only occasion in Napoleon’s life when he
stood between a nation willing to be robbed and a consciousness
that to rob it was a blunder. The draft of his note showed his
embarrassment. Remarkable in many ways, it required special notice
in two points. The proposed Vienna Decree confiscated American
ships because French ships were forbidden under threat of
confiscation to enter American ports. The note of January 25
suggested a variation from this idea. American ships were to be
confiscated everywhere except in France, because they were
forbidden to enter France. As they were also confiscated in France
because they were forbidden to leave America, the Emperor had
nothing more to demand. His reasoning was as convincing as a
million bayonets could make it; but perhaps it was less Napoleonic
than the avowal that for six months the Emperor had been engaged
in inveigling American property into neutral ports in order that he
might seize it.
Apparently Cadore still raised obstacles to the Emperor’s will. For
some three weeks he held this note back, and when at last,
February 14, he sent it to Armstrong, he made changes which were
not all improvements in the Emperor’s text. Indeed, Napoleon might
reasonably have found as much fault with Champagny as he found
with some of his generals, for failing to carry out the orders he
dictated:—
“His Majesty could place no reliance on the proceedings of the
United States, who, having no ground of complaint against France,
comprised her in their acts of exclusion, and since the month of May
have forbidden the entrance of their ports to French vessels, under
the penalty of confiscation. As soon as his Majesty was informed of
this measure, he considered himself bound to order reprisals on
American vessels, not only in his territory, but likewise in the countries
which are under his influence. In the ports of Holland, of Spain, of
Italy, and of Naples, American vessels have been seized because the
Americans have seized French vessels.”
After such long discussions and so many experiments, Napoleon
had become reckless of appearances when he allowed his foreign
secretary to send this note of Feb. 14, 1810, in which every line was
a misstatement, and every misstatement, as far as concerned
America, was evident in its purpose; while apart from these faults,
the note erred in trying to cover too much ground of complaint
against the United States. Napoleon had, in the projected Decree of
Vienna, ordered retaliation everywhere for the confiscation
threatened by the Non-intercourse Act. Made to feel the impossibility
of this course, he changed his ground, continuing to confiscate
American ships in France under the old Bayonne Decree, and
ordering the sequestration of American ships throughout the rest of
Europe on the plea that other countries must not enjoy a commerce
interdicted to France. Cadore’s note abandoned this ground again, in
order to return to the doctrine of the projected Vienna Decree; and
in the effort to give it a color of reason, he asserted that the
Americans had seized French vessels.
Such a letter was a declaration of war six months after beginning
hostilities; and it made no offer of peace except on condition that
the United States should pledge themselves to resist every British
blockade which was not real in the sense defined by Napoleon.
Armstrong wrote to his Government, in language as strong as he
could use, that nothing was to be expected from a policy that had
no other foundation than force or fraud. His angry remonstrances
had embroiled him with the Emperor, and he was on the point of
quitting France. Under such circumstances he did not insist on
breaking off further conversations with Petry, but February 25 he
positively assured Petry that neither would the President and Senate
ratify, nor would he himself as negotiator accept, a treaty in any
form which did not provide reparation for the past as well as security
for the future;[177] and March 10 he replied to the Duc de Cadore in
what the Emperor would have called a morose tone, denying every
assertion made in Cadore’s note,—reminding Cadore that the
Emperor had received knowledge of the Non-intercourse Act at the
time of its passage without a sign of protest or complaint; and,
finally, renewing his old, longstanding grievances against “the daily
and practical outrages on the part of France.”[178]
When the Emperor received Armstrong’s letter, which was
excessively strong, and ended in a suggestion that Napoleon was
trying to cover theft by falsehood, he showed no sign of anger, but
became almost apologetic, and wrote to Cadore,[179]—
“Make a sketch of a reply to the American minister. It will be easy
for you to make him understand that I am master to do here what
America does there; that when America embargoes French ships
entering her ports, I have the right to reciprocate. You will explain to
him how that law came to our knowledge only a short time ago, and
only when I had knowledge of it did I immediately prescribe the same
measure; that a few days before, I was busying myself with provisions
for raising the actual prohibitions on American merchandise, when the
course of commerce (la voie du commerce) made known to me that
our honor was involved, and that no compromise was possible; that I
conceive America as entitled to prevent her ships from coming to
England and France; that I approved this last measure, though there
was much to be said about it; but that I cannot recognize that she
should arrogate the right of seizing French ships in her ports without
putting herself in the case of incurring reciprocity.”
One must answer as one can the question why Cadore, who had
in his hands Armstrong’s letter of April 29, 1809,[180] officially
communicating the Non-intercourse Act, should not have suggested
to Napoleon that some limit to his failings of memory ought to be
observed. Napoleon’s memory was sometimes overtasked by the
mass of details he undertook to carry in his mind, but a striking
incident always impressed itself there. Mme. de Rémusat[181] told
how Grétry, who as member of the Institute regularly attended the
Imperial audiences, was almost as regularly asked by Napoleon,
“Who are you?” Tired at last of this rough question, Grétry replied by
an answer equally blunt: “Sire, toujours Grétry;” and thenceforward
the Emperor never failed to remember him. The United States in a
similar tone recalled their affairs to the Emperor’s memory by the
Non-intercourse Act; but had this “toujours Grétry” not been
enough, Napoleon’s financial needs also made him peculiarly alive to
every event that could relieve them, and his correspondence proved
that the Non-intercourse Act as early as May, 1809, impressed him
deeply. Yet in March, 1810, he not only convinced himself that this
Act had just come to his knowledge, producing in him an outburst of
national dignity, but he also convinced his Minister of Foreign
Relations, who knew the contrary, that these impressions were true,
and made him witness them by his signature.
Acting without delay on the theory of sudden passion, the
Emperor signed, three days afterward, March 23, a decree known as
the Decree of Rambouillet, in which the result of these long
hesitations was at last condensed.[182] This document was a
paraphrase of the projected Decree of Vienna of Aug. 4, 1809; and it
showed the tenacity with which Napoleon, while seeming to yield to
opposition, never failed to return to a purpose and effect its object.
In order to carry out the Decree of Vienna in that of Rambouillet he
was forced into a coup d’état. He had not only to expel his brother
Louis from Holland, and annex Holland to France, but also to drive
his ablest minister, Fouché, from the Cabinet.
Of the steps by which he accomplished his objects, something
can be seen in his letters; of his motives, no doubt ever existed.
Armstrong described them in strong language; but his language was
that of a party interested. Thiers recounted them as a panegyric,
and his language was even clearer than Armstrong’s. He made
nothing of the Emperor’s pretence that his seizures were in reprisal
for the Non-intercourse Act. “This was an official reason (une raison
d’apparat),” said Thiers.[183] “He was in search of a specious pretext
for seizing in Holland, in France, in Italy, the mass of American ships
which smuggled for the English, and which were within his reach. He
had actually sequestered a considerable number; and in their rich
cargoes were to be found the means of furnishing his Treasury with
resources nearly equal to those procured for him by the
contributions of war imposed on the vanquished.”
The system of treating the United States as an enemy conquered
in war rested on a foundation of truth; and as usual with conquered
countries it met with most resistance, not from them but from
bystanders. The Emperor of Russia, the kings of Prussia, Sweden,
and Denmark, the Hanse Towns, and King Louis of Holland were the
chief obstacles to the success of the scheme to which they were
required to be parties. King Louis of Holland refused to seize the
American ships at Amsterdam, and forced his brother to the
conclusion that if nothing else could be done, Holland must be
annexed to France.
For many reasons the annexation of Holland met with little favor
in the Emperor’s family and among his Council. Chief among its
opponents was Fouché, who sacrificed himself in his efforts to
prevent it. Driven to the conviction that nothing but peace with
England could put an end to the Emperor’s experiments on the
welfare of France, Fouché resolved that peace should be made, and
invented a scheme for bringing it about. As Minister of Police he
controlled secret means of intrigue, and probably he acted without
concert with his colleagues; but the motives which guided him were
common to almost all Napoleon’s Cabinet. The only difference
between ministers was, that while Cadore, Montalivet, Mollien, and
Decrès stopped their opposition when it became dangerous, Fouché
undertook to act.
Something of this came to Armstrong’s ears. As early as January
10[184] he reported a remark which he could not understand. “‘Do
not believe,’ said a minister to me the other day, ‘that peace
between us and England is impossible. If we offer to her the
commerce of the world, can she resist it?’” Unknown to Armstrong,
Napoleon had already made an advance to England. For this purpose
he employed Labouchere, the chief banker of Holland, whose
association with the Barings of London fitted him to act as an
intermediary. The message sent by the Emperor through Labouchere
could hardly be called an offer of terms; it amounted only to a threat
that unless England made peace Holland should be annexed to
France, and every avenue of illicit commerce in northern Europe
should be stopped. In itself this message could hardly serve as
ground for a treaty; but Fouché, without the Emperor’s knowledge,
sent to London at the same time, about January 18, a secret agent
named Fagan, to suggest that if Great Britain would abandon Spain,
France would join in creating from the Spanish-American colonies a
monarchy for Ferdinand VII., and from Louisiana, at the expense of
the United States, a kingdom for the French Bourbons.[185]
This last idea bore on its face the marks of its origin. Fouché had
listened to Aaron Burr, who after years of effort reached Paris, and
presented to the government a memoir showing that with ten
thousand regular troops, and a combined attack from Canada and
Louisiana, the destruction of the United States was certain.[186] The
scheme for placing the Spanish Bourbons on a Spanish-American
throne probably came from the same Ouvrard whom Napoleon
imprisoned at Vincennes, and whom Fouché took into favor.
Labouchere and Fagan went to England, and early in February
had interviews with the British ministers, who quickly dismissed
them. The only impression made on the British government by the
double mission was one of perplexity at the object of an errand
which appeared too absurd for discussion. The two agents returned
to the Continent, and reported the result of their journey. Meanwhile
Napoleon ordered Marshal Oudinot to march his army-corps into
Holland, a step which brought King Louis to immediate submission.
“I promise you,” wrote Louis, “to follow faithfully all the
engagements you shall impose upon me. I give you my word of
honor to follow them faithfully and loyally from the moment I shall
have undertaken them.”[187] While Cadore was still negotiating with
Armstrong for an arrangement with America, he was also employed
in framing a treaty with Louis, which exacted the seizure of all
American ships and merchandise in Dutch ports.[188] Louis came to
Paris, and March 16 signed the treaty which by a secret stipulation
provided for the seizure of American property.[189]
Matters stood thus April 1, 1810, when the ceremonies of the
Imperial marriage interrupted for the moment further action.
Napoleon had carried his point in regard to the punishment of
America; but the difficulties he had already met were trifling
compared with the difficulties to come.
CHAPTER XII.
Napoleon set out, April 27, with his new Empress on a wedding
journey to Holland. In the course of his journey an accident revealed
to him the secret correspondence which Fouché had conducted
through Fagan with the British government. Nothing criminal was
alleged, nor was it evident that the Minister of Police had acted
contrary to the Emperor’s admitted wishes; but since the fall of
Talleyrand, Fouché alone had considered himself so necessary to the
Imperial service as to affect independence, and the opportunity to
discipline him could not be lost. June 3 he was disgraced, and exiled
to Italy. General Savary, Duc de Rovigo, succeeded him as Minister
of Police.
The fate of King Louis was almost equally swift. When he
returned to Holland after promising entire submission and signing
the treaty of March 16, he could not endure the disgrace of carrying
his pledges into effect. He tried to evade the surrender of the
American ships, and to resist the military occupation of his kingdom.
He showed public sympathy with the Emperor’s opponents, and with
riotous popular proceedings at Amsterdam. Once more the Emperor
was obliged to treat him as an enemy. June 24 the French troops
were ordered to occupy Amsterdam, and July 3 Louis, abdicating his
throne, took refuge in Germany. July 8 Napoleon signed a Decree
annexing Holland to France.[190]
The United States at the same time received their punishment for
opposing the Imperial will. The Decree of Rambouillet, though
signed March 23, was published only May 14, when the
sequestrations previously made in Holland, Spain, Italy, and France
became in a manner legalized. The value of the seizures in Holland
and Spain was estimated by the Emperor in arranging his budget for
the current year as follows:[191] American cargoes previously seized
at Antwerp, two million dollars; cargoes surrendered by Holland, two
million four hundred thousand dollars; seizures in Spain, one million
six hundred thousand dollars.
In this estimate of six million dollars the seizures in France,
Denmark, Hamburg, Italy, and Naples were not included. The
American consul at Paris reported to Armstrong that between April
1809 and April 1810 fifty-one American ships had been seized in the
ports of France, forty-four in the ports of Spain, twenty-eight in
those of Naples, and eleven in those of Holland.[192] Assuming an
average value of thirty thousand dollars, these one hundred and
thirty-four American ships represented values exceeding four
millions. Adding to Napoleon’s estimate of six millions the Consul’s
reported seizure of seventy-nine ships in France and Naples, a sum
of nearly $8,400,000 was attained. In this estimate the seizures at
Hamburg, in Denmark, and in the Baltic were not included. On the
whole the loss occasioned to Americans could not be estimated at
less than ten millions, even after allowing for English property
disguised as American. The exports from the United States during
the six months after the embargo amounted to fifty-two million
dollars,[193] exclusive of the ships; and as England offered a less
profitable market than the Continent, one fifth of this commerce
might easily have fallen into Napoleon’s hands. Twenty years
afterward the government of France paid five million dollars as
indemnity for a portion of the seizures, from which Napoleon by his
own account received not less than seven millions.
Profitable as this sweeping confiscation was, and thoroughly as
Napoleon overbore opposition in his family and Cabinet, such
measures in no way promised to retrieve the disaster his system
suffered from the defection of America. While England protected
American ships in their attempts to counteract his system in Spain,
Holland, and in the Baltic, the Emperor regarded American trade as
identical with British, and confiscated it accordingly; but by doing so
he exhausted his means of punishment, and since he could not
march armies to New York and Baltimore as he marched them to
Amsterdam and Hamburg, he could only return on his steps and
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade
Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
ebookfinal.com