These documents, combined with a knowledge of the license system, showed the true scope and meaning of Cadore’s pledge so clearly as to leave no possibility of doubt. If America chose to accept these limitations of her neutral rights, she was at liberty to do so; but she could hardly require England to admit that the Berlin and Milan Decrees were in any sense revoked because American ships were thenceforward to be admitted to France subject to the system of those decrees. Napoleon concealed neither his policy nor his motives, and as these did not warrant the assertion that France had ceased to violate the neutral rights of America, President Madison was obliged to assume that the Emperor meant to do more. A month after his decision was made, he wrote to Jefferson a letter of speculation as to the reasons that prevented the Emperor from taking the action assumed to belong to his plans:[277]-- “It is, as you remark, difficult to understand the meaning of Bonaparte toward us. There is little doubt that his want of money and his ignorance of commerce have had a material influence. He has also distrusted the stability and efficacy of our pledge to renew the non-intercourse against Great Britain, and has wished to execute his in a manner that would keep pace only with the execution of ours, and at the same time leave no interval for the operation of the British Orders without a counter-operation in either his or our measures. In all this his folly is obvious.” Such language was not only inconsistent with the doctrine that the French Decrees stood repealed in such a manner as no longer to violate American commerce, but it also showed that Madison deceived himself as to Napoleon’s character and his policy. Of all theories on which to found political action, the least reasonable was that of assuming Napoleon to be foolish; yet his “obvious folly” was Madison’s explanation of an ingenious and successful device to enforce the Continental system. Having adopted a policy, Madison could not but carry it to its practical results. Robert Smith came to him February 20 with the draft of a note addressed to Serurier, asking for information as to the withdrawal of the decrees,--a course similar to that adopted with Jackson. “I was, to my astonishment, told by him that it would not be expedient to send to Mr. Serurier any such note. His deportment during this interview evinced a high degree of disquietude, which occasionally betrayed him into fretful expressions.”[278]