From the first moment of the embargo, even during the secret debate of Dec. 19, 1807, its opponents raised the cry of French influence; and so positively and persistently was Jefferson charged with subservience to Napoleon, that while a single Federalist lived, this doctrine continued to be an article of his creed. In truth, Jefferson had never stood on worse terms with France than when he imposed the embargo. He acted in good faith when he enclosed Armstrong’s letter and Regnier’s decision in his Embargo Message. Turreau was annoyed at his conduct, thinking it intended to divert public anger from England to France in order to make easier the negotiation with Rose. Instead of dictating Jefferson’s course, as the Federalists believed, Turreau was vexed and alarmed by it. He complained of Armstrong, Madison, and Jefferson himself. The Embargo Message, he said, exposed the Administration in flank to the Federalists, and gave the English envoy free play. “For me it was a useless proof--one proof the more--of the usual awkwardness of the Washington Cabinet, and of its falsity (_fausseté_) in regard to France.”[181] His contempt involved equally people, Legislature, and Executive:-- “Faithful organs of the perverse intentions of the American people, its representatives came together before their usual time, in accordance with the President’s views, and in their private conversation and in their public deliberations seemed entirely to forget the offences of England, or rather to have been never affected by them. This temper, common to the men of all parties, proved very evidently what was the state of popular opinion in regard to Great Britain, against whom no hostile project will ever enter into an American’s thoughts. The Annual Message was not calculated to inspire energy into the honorable Congress. All these political documents from the President’s pen are cold and colorless.”[182] The result of Rose’s negotiation confirmed Turreau’s disgust:-- “It can be no longer doubtful that the United States, whatever insults they may have to endure, will never make war on Great Britain unless she attacks them. Every day I have been, and still am, met with the objection that the decrees of the French government have changed the disposition of the members of the Executive, and especially of members of Congress. Both have seized this incident as a pretext to color their cowardice (_lâcheté_), and extend it over their system of inaction; since it is evident that however severe the measures of the French government may have been, they weigh light in the balance when set in opposition to all the excesses, all the outrages, that England has permitted herself to inflict on the United States.”[183]