1. Stoughton to Chacon, January 24, 1817, Harvard Business School Baker Library, Don Juan Stoughton letterbooks (hereafter DJSH), vol. 4.

2. Chacon to Elias Glenn, September 3, 1816, National Archives and Records Administration (hereafter NARA) College Park, State Dept. Correspondence, Notes from Foreign Consuls, Spain; Chacon to Stoughton, January 15, 1817, Ms. 1218, Boston Public Library, Rare Books Department.

3. Opinion of the Attorney General, July 23, 1816, NARA College Park, Opinions of the Attorney General, Richard Rush; Wirt to Monroe, July 11, 1816, Library of Congress, William Wirt Papers (microfilm).

4. United States v. Swift alias Mangore, order filed January 21, 1817, NARA Philadelphia, District Court for Maryland (hereafter USDC-MD), Admiralty Case Files, 1817–1818.

5. William Sullivan to Stoughton, February 13, 1817, Bostonian Society, Don Juan Stoughton Papers (hereafter DJSBS), DJS Correspondence, 1817; Stoughton to the Widow Roberts, December 14, 1816, DJSH vol. 4; and United States v. 8 bags of cocoa, NARA Boston, United States District Court for Massachusetts, Final Record Book (hereafter USDC-MA, FRB), 9:263.

6. For background on the Spanish consular service in the early United States, see Perrone, Sean T., “The Formation of the Spanish Consular Service in the United States (1795–1860),” in Consuls et services consulaires au XIXe siecle, ed. Ulbert, Jorg and Prijac, Lukian (Hamburg: DOBU Verlag, 2010), 203–17Google Scholar, and Faye, Stanley, “Consuls of Spain in New Orleans,” Louisiana Historical Quarterly 21:3 (July 1938): 677–684Google Scholar.

7. This kind of litigation was not a new phenomenon; although underreported in the scholarly literature, private litigation in admiralty courts over privateering had been a feature of legal practice in Europe and elsewhere for at least two centuries. On Alberico Gentili's representation of Spanish merchants in English admiralty courts, see Benton, Lauren, “Legal Problems of Empire in Gentili's Hispanica Advocatio,” in The Roman Foundations of the Law of Nations, ed. Kingsbury, Benedict and Straumann, Benjamin (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 269–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8. See, for example, Henderson, Dwight F., Courts for a New Nation (Washington, D.C.: Public Affairs Press, 1971)Google Scholar; Tachau, Mary K. Bonsteel, Federal Courts in the Early Republic: Kentucky, 1789–1816 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978)Google Scholar; Holt, Wythe, “‘To Establish Justice’: Politics, the Judiciary Act of 1789, and the Invention of the Federal Courts,” Duke Law Journal (December 1989): 1421–1521CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Preyer, Kathryn, “Jurisdiction to Punish: Federal Authority, Federalism and the Common Law of Crimes in the Early Republic,” Law and History Review 4:2 (Autumn 1986): 223–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9. See, for example, White, G. Edward, History of the Supreme Court of the United States: The Marshall Court and Cultural Change, 1815–1835 (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1988)Google Scholar; Ziegler, Benjamin Munn, The International Law of John Marshall: A Study of First Principles (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1939)Google Scholar; and Newmyer, R. Kent, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story: Statesman of the Old Republic (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1985)Google Scholar.

10. See Casto, William R., Foreign Affairs and the Constitution in the Age of Fighting Sail (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2006)Google Scholar; Casto, , “The Origins of Federal Admiralty Jurisdiction in an Age of Privateers, Smugglers, and Privateers,” American Journal of Legal History 37:2 (April 1993): 117–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Sloss, David, “Judicial Foreign Policy: Lessons from the 1790s,” Saint Louis University Law Journal 53:1 (Fall 2009): 145–194Google Scholar.

11. See, for example, Golove, David M. and Hulsebosch, Daniel J., “A Civilized Nation: The Early American Constitution, the Law of Nations, and the Pursuit of International Recognition,” New York University Law Review 85:4 (October 2010): 932–1066Google Scholar. On transatlantic legal culture in the Age of Revolution, see Adelman, Jeremy, Republic of Capital: Buenos Aires and the Legal Transformation of the Atlantic World (Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1999)Google Scholar; Dubois, Laurent, Colony of Citizens: Revolution and Slave Emancipation in the French Caribbean, 1787–1804 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004)Google Scholar; and Hulsebosch, Daniel J., Constituting Empire: New York and the Transformation of Constitutionalism in the Atlantic World, 1664–1830 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006)Google Scholar.

12. There are two recent exceptions to the general scholarly inattention to the events discussed in this article. Stoughton's effort to recover one particular vessel is the focus of Perrone, Sean T., “John Stoughton and the Divina Pastora Prize Case, 1816–1819,” Journal of the Early Republic 28:2 (Summer 2008): 215–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar, which ably reveals the lengths to which Stoughton went to win that case and highlights in particular the difficulties Stoughton had in his relationships with commercial agents in Spain and the United States. In addition, David Head, “Sailing for Spanish America: The Atlantic Geopolitics of Foreign Privateering from the United States in the Early Republic” (PhD diss., University of Buffalo, 2010), offers an impressively researched account of American privateering in this period. In contrast to these two works, this article focuses on Iberian consular litigation more generally and its relationship to the federal government's efforts at interdiction and prosecution, as a means of illuminating the crucial role the federal courts played in resolving international legal disputes arising from the myriad conflicts of the Age of Revolution.

13. Adams to William Plumer, January 17, 1817, in Ford, Worthington Chauncey, ed., The Writings of John Quincy Adams (New York: Macmillan Company, 1913–1917), 6:139–44Google Scholar; on United States involvement in the revolutions in Latin America, see Griffin, Charles, The United States and the Disruption of the Spanish Empire, 1810–1822 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1937)Google Scholar; Lewis, James E., The American Union and the Problem of Neighborhood: The United States and the Collapse of the Spanish Empire, 1783–1829 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998)Google Scholar; and Whitaker, Arthur, The United States and the Independence of Latin America, 1800–1830 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1941).Google Scholar

14. For Adams's justification of Jackson's conduct, see his letter to Don Luis de Onis of July 23, 1818, in Writings, 6:386–92. On Jackson's actions in Florida more generally, see Heidler, David S. and Heidler, Jeanne T., Old Hickory's War: Andrew Jackson and the Quest for Empire (Mechanicsburg: Stackpole Books, 1996)Google Scholar.

15. Adams to Peter Paul Francis de Grand, January 21, 1818, in Writings, 6:289; Adams to John Adams, December 21, 1817, in Writings, 6:276. On the differences between Monroe and Adams as noted by the French ambassador to the United States, Hyde de Neuville, see his letter of December 11, 1817 to the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, in de Neuville, Jean Guillaume Hyde, Memoires et Souvenirs du Baron Hyde de Neuville (Paris: E. Plon, Nourrit, 1888), 2:329Google Scholar.

16. On American privateers during the War of 1812, see Garitee, Jerome R., The Republic's Private Navy: The American Privateering Business as Practiced by Baltimore During the War of 1812 (Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1977)Google Scholar.

17. For a recent study of these privateers, see Head, “Sailing for Spanish America”; see also Griffin, Charles C., “Privateering from Baltimore During the Spanish–American Wars of Independence,” Maryland Historical Magazine 35:1 (March 1940): 1–25Google Scholar; and Beraza, Agustin, Los corsarios de Artigas (Montevideo: Imprenta Nacional, 1949)Google Scholar. On Artigas and privateering, see Benton, Lauren, “Strange Sovereignty: The Provincia Oriental in the Atlantic World,” in 20/10: El Mundo Atlantico y la Modernidad Iberoamericana (in Spanish, forthcoming 2012)Google Scholar.

18. U.S. Const., Art. III, Sec. 2; Judiciary Act of 1789, sec. 9, 1 Stat. 73; see generally, Garitee, The Republic's Private Navy; Wheaton, Henry, A Digest of the Law of Maritime Captures and Prizes (New York: R. M'Dermut & D.D. Arden, 1815)Google Scholar.

19. In response to the outbreak of war between revolutionary France and Great Britain in 1793, the Washington administration issued a neutrality proclamation, stipulating that the United States would not take sides in the conflict. At the same time, however, French emissary Edmond-Charles Genet sought to recruit and arm American mariners and ships to serve as privateers against the British, and instructed French consuls in major ports in the United States to establish prize courts. For the next year the government was embroiled in a controversy over whether citizens who enlisted as privateers could be criminally prosecuted for violating United States neutrality without Congressional action. Passage of the neutrality statute in 1794 resolved this issue. See Ammon, Harry, The Genet Mission (New York: W.W. Norton, 1973)Google Scholar. The federal courts' significant role in this episode is detailed in Castro, Foreign Affairs and the Constitution; Sloss, “Judicial Foreign Policy”; and the documents collected in Marcus, Maeva and Perry, James R., eds., The Documentary History of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1789–1800 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1989)Google Scholar.

20. Act of June 5, 1794, 1 Stat. 381; and Act of June 14, 1797, 1 Stat. 520. On United States neutrality generally, see Fenwick, Charles G., The Neutrality Laws of the United States (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1913)Google Scholar.

21. Monroe to Onis, July 30, 1816, in Manning, William R., ed., Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States Concerning the Independence of the Latin-American Nations (New York, Oxford University Press, 1925)Google Scholar, 1:36; Onis to Monroe, January 2, 15, and 16, 1817 in The Case of Great Britain as Laid before the Tribunal of Arbitration (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1872), 3:167–71; and February 10 and 11, and March 14 and 26, 1817 in Case of Great Britain, 3:171–77. Onis's similar complaints about filibustering expeditions being organized in Louisiana dated back to 1815. See, for example, Onis to Monroe, December 30, 1815, in American State Papers, 1, Foreign Relations, 4:422–423.

22. Monroe to Onis, July 30, 1816, in Manning, Diplomatic Correspondence, 1:36; and Davis, Richard Beale, “The Abbé Correa in America, 1812–1820,” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 45:2 (1955): 105Google Scholar.

23. Madison to Congress, December 26, 1816, in Annals of Congress, 14th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1079–80. Several years later, Monroe recalled to Adams that Correa da Serra had been the inspiration for the changes to the neutrality law. Monroe to Adams, in Writings, 6:147.

24. Monroe to John Forsyth, Chairman of Committee on Foreign Relations, January 6 and 10, 1817, in Annals of Congress, 14th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1080–82. On the earlier embargo efforts, see 2 Stat. 499 (1808); Spivak, Burton, Jefferson's English Crisis: Commerce, Embargo, and the Republican Revolution (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1979)Google Scholar; and Jones, Douglas Lamar, “‘The Caprice of Juries’: The Enforcement of the Jeffersonian Embargo in Massachusetts,” American Journal of Legal History 24:4 (October 1980): 307–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25. Annals of Congress, 14th Cong., 2nd Sess., 728–29, 736–37, 750; 15th Cong., 1st Sess., 1412, 1421; “An Act to more effectually to preserve the neutral relations of the United States,” March 3, 1817, 3 Stat. 370; and “In addition to the Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States, and to repeal the acts therein mentioned,” April 20, 1818, 3 Stat. 447.

26. Annals of Congress, 14th Cong., 2nd Sess., 726, 746, 753; 15th Cong., 1st Sess., 1421, 142–6; and 14th Cong., 2nd Sess., 205, 770. On general hostility towards privateering in this period, see Parrillo, Nicholas, “The De-Privatization of American Warfare: How the U.S. Government Used, Regulated, and Ultimately Abandoned Privateering in the Nineteenth Century,” Yale Journal of Law & Humanities 19:1 (Winter 2007): 1–95Google Scholar.

27. Onis to consuls, March 13, 1817, Virginia Historical Society, Papers of the Spanish Consulate in Norfolk, Virginia, 1795–1846 (hereafter PSC), section 3, box 5, folder 64; Argote to Mallory, April 10, 1817; Argote to Wirt, April 10, 1817, in Manning, Diplomatic Correspondence, 3:1935–36; and Wirt to Argote, April 14, 1817, Library of Congress, William Wirt Papers. It is not clear that collectors made use of their expanded powers. Several months after the 1817 statute was passed, the collector of customs in Providence, Rhode Island wrote his Boston counterpart to ask whether it was his practice to take bonds under the act; the answer was no. Thomas Coles to Henry Dearborn, October 13, 1817, NARA Boston, Customs Collectors, Letters Received, Collectors & Others, 1772–1882.

28. Rush to Mallory, March 28, 1817, in case file for Chacon v. 89 Bales of Cochineal, Library of Virginia, United States Circuit Court Records (5th Circuit), 1790–1861.

29. Mallory to Argote, Apr. 11, 1817; Argote to Mallory, April 12, 1817, in Manning, Diplomatic Correspondence, 3:1937.

30. Mallory to Argote, April 14, 1817, in Manning, Diplomatic Correspondence, 3:1938; on changes in the doctrine of expatriation in this period, see Kettner, James H., The Development of American Citizenship, 1608–1870 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1978), 249–84Google Scholar.

31. Adams to Onis, April 17, 1819, in Manning, Diplomatic Correspondence, 1:97.

32. Diary entry of March 29, 1819, in Memoirs of John Quincy Adams: comprising portions of his diary from 1795 to 1848 (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co, 1874), 4:314Google Scholar. On the “politics of accommodation” at the customhouse, see Gautham Rao, “The Creation of the American State: Customhouses, Law, and Commerce in the Age of Revolution” (PhD diss., University of Chicago, 2008).

33. Onis to Monroe, February 10, 1817, in Case of Great Britain, 3:185; Onis to Rush, April 4, 1817; Onis to Adams, November 2, 1817; Onis to Adams, June 9, 1818, in Manning, Diplomatic Correspondence, 3:1927, 1951, 1967; and Davis, “The Abbé Correa in America,” 104–6.

34. “An act for the Punishment of certain Crimes against the United States,” April 30, 1790, 1 Stat. 112; Glenn to Madison, September 7, 1816, in Annals of Congress, 14th Cong., 2nd sess., 1084–85; and United States v. Hutchings, 2 Wheeler C.C. 543, 26 F. Cas. 440 (C.C. D. Va. 1817).

35. “Important Law Case,” New-York Spectator, December 1, 1818, 3; and Letter to the Editor, “Commodore Taylor's Case,” Baltimore Patriot, November 30, 1818, 2.

36. Adams, diary entry of March 29, 1819, in Memoirs, 4:314; Glenn to Wirt, October 9 and November 13, 1818, NARA College Park, Records of the Attorney General, Letters Received, Maryland, Private Citizens, 1812–25; Wirt to Glenn, October 12 and November 6 and 9, 1818, NARA College Park, Records of the Attorney General, Letters Sent, microfilm M699; Wirt to Glenn, 1 Op. Att'y Gen. 249 (1818); Wirt to Littleton Waller Tazewell, October 15, 1818, Library of Virginia, Tazewell family papers, 1623–930, Box 3, Folder 13; and Wirt to Reverend Rice, February 1, 1822, in Kennedy, John P., Memoirs of the Life of William Wirt (Philadelphia: Lea and Blanchard, 1850), 2:135Google Scholar.

37. Elias Glenn to Wirt, November 13, 1818; and [Robert?] Swift to Wirt, December 1, 1818, in NARA College Park, Correspondence of the Attorney General, Letters Received, Maryland Private Citizens, 1812–1825.

38. Adams, diary entry of March 29, 1819, in Memoirs 4:314; and Commercial Advertiser (New York), December 8, 1818, 2. On Pinkney, see Warren, Charles, A History of the American Bar (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1913): 382–83Google Scholar.

39. United States v. Palmer, et al., indictment, NARA Boston, United States Circuit Court for Massachusetts, Final Record Book (hereafter USCC-MA, FRB), 10:390–91; and United States v. Palmer, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 610, 612, 631 (1818). Marshall's view was not shared by all his colleagues; Joseph Story, in particular, consistently argued that the United States and other sovereign nations had universal jurisdiction to prosecute and punish pirates under domestic law. See United States v. Smith, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 153 (1820); and Rubin, Alfred P., The Law of Piracy, 2nd ed. (Irving-on-Hudson: Transnational Publishers, 1998), 150–58Google Scholar.

40. United States v. Palmer, et al, 16 U.S. at 631–35; and “Law Intelligence,” New-Bedford Mercury, April 24, 1818, 4. The members of one prize crew were convicted for murder after they got drunk celebrating the Fourth of July and threw their captain overboard. United States v. Holmes, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 412 (1820); and The Trial of William Holmes, Thomas Warrington, and Edward Rosewain, on an Indictment for Murder on the High Seas (Boston: Joseph C. Spear, 1820)Google Scholar.

41. The Bello Corrunes, 19 U.S. 152, 152–53 (1821).

42. Adams to Onis, October 31, 1818, in Manning, Diplomatic Correspondence, 1:80; Adams to Monroe, August 30, 1820; Monroe to Adams, September 25, 1820; and Adams to Correa da Serra, September 30, 1820, in Writings, 7:68, 73.

43. Annals of Congress, 15th Cong., 1st Sess., 142 6; Stoughton to the Widow Roberts, May 23, 1817, DJSH vol. 4.

44. Stoughton v. Sundry specie from Industria Raffaelli, libel of Stoughton, claim of Diggs, USDC-MA, FRB, 10:95–99, 108–11; and “More of the Spanish Ship,” Newburyport (MA) Herald, September 16, 1817, 2. These were the criminal defendants in United States v. Palmer, 16 U.S. 610, discussed earlier.

45. Stoughton v. Sundry specie from Industria Raffaelli; Stoughton v. 280 Spanish dollars; Stoughton v. 42 pipes of rum, USDC-MA, FRB; Stoughton v. Three boxes segars; Stoughton v. McLellan, USCC-MA, FRB; McLellan v. 42 pipes of rum; Knights v. Three Anchors; United States v. Sloop Abby; United States v. Sloop Betsey, USDC-MA, FRB; Benjamin Trevett to Stoughton, January 18, 1819, DJSBS, DJS Correspondence, 1819; and United States v. Orb alias Congresso, USDC-MD, case files 1817–1818.

46. Stoughton to the owners of the brig San Jose, July 9, 1816, DJSH vol. 4; Stoughton v. Sundry specie from Industria Raffaelli, claim of Diggs, USDC-MA, FRB, 10:108–11.

47. Stoughton v. Sundry specie from Industria Raffaelli, USDC-MA, FRB, 10:145–59; USDC-MA, FRB, 10:100–102; USDC-MA, FRB, 10:159–68; Stoughton to the Widow Roberts (Cadiz), July 9, 1816; and Stoughton to Roig Sabrino (Havana), February 14, 1818, DJSH vol. 4.

48. “William Sullivan,” Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1840), 2:150–60Google Scholar; Davis, William T., Bench and Bar of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (New York: Da Capo Press, 1974Google Scholar [Reprint of the 1895 ed. published by Boston History Co., Boston]), 1:436.

49. Pablo Chacon to Robert Stanard, December 12, 1820, PSC, section 11, box 19, folder 82; Statement of legal expenses, June 29, 1818, PSC, section 11, box 19, folder 84; and Zamorano v. Sundry Goods, NARA Philadelphia, Records of the United States Circuit Court for Maryland, Appeals Docket, November 1819.

50. The Divina Pastora, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 52 (1819); La Conception, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 235 (1821); The Bello Corrunes, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 152, 169–171 (1821); The Santissima Trinidad, 20 U.S. (7 Wheat.) 283, 347–48 (1822); The Arragonte Barcelones, 20 U.S. (7 Wheat.) 496 (1822); La Nereyda, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 108 (1823); The Monte Allegre, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 616 (1824); The Santa Maria, 23 U.S. (10 Wheat.) 431 (1825); The Gran Para, 23 U.S. (10 Wheat.) 497 (1825).

51. For information on the value of prizes taken by Baltimore privateers, see generally Head, “Sailing for Spanish America,” 92, 189–97. For the million-dollar vessels, see Onis to John Quincy Adams, November 2, 1817 and June 9, 1818, in Manning, Diplomatic Correspondence, 3:1951–1952, 1967–1969; and Stoughton v. Barnes, deposition of Peckner, NARA, Admiralty Case Files of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 1790–1842, microfilm M919.

52. Stoughton v. 42 pipes of rum, USDC-MA, FRB, 11:17–27; Knights v. Three Anchors, USDC-MA, FRB, 10:529–31; Vasques v. The Brig Paqueta de Oporto and Cargo, NARA Boston, United States District Court for Maine, Final Record Book (hereafter USDC-ME, FRB), 10:11–13; and Chacon v. Ship Providencia, NARA Philadelphia, Admiralty Cases of the United States District Court for Virginia, Order book 1811–1819, 292–93.

53. Stoughton v. 280 Spanish Dollars, USDC-MA, FRB, 10:509–15; NARA Philadelphia, Minute Book of the District Court for Maryland, January 21, 1823; “Marshal's Sale,” Baltimore Patriot, October 16, 1822, 3; Baltimore Patriot, December 31, 1822, 4; and Head, “Sailing for Spanish America,” 196, 207.

54. See, generally, Head, “Sailing for Spanish America,” 115–16. On the possible corruption of Baltimore officials, see Adams, diary entry of March 29, 1819, in Memoirs, 4:314. Adams did not go as far as a New York paper, which accused the judges who presided over the unsuccessful attempt to try Taylor for piracy of dining with the defendant during the proceedings. Evening Post (New York), December 2, 1818, 2.

55. See Stoughton v. Schooner Nuestra Senora de la Cisa, USDC-MA, FRB, 11:453; Stoughton v. Sundry specie from Industria Raffaelli, USDC-MA, FRB, 10:172; Diggs v. Stoughton, USCC-MA, FRB, 12:158; and Stoughton v. Divina Pastora, USCC-MA, FRB, 13:123.

56. Howe et al. v. Brig Economia, USCC-MA, FRB, 10:61–63.

57. Stoughton to Stephen W. Deblois, August 31, 1819, DJSH vol. 4.

58. Stoughton v. Divina Pastora, marshal's return, USDC-MA, FRB, 9:545.

59. On the standard commission received by consuls in admiralty cases, see statement of W.B. Swett, et al., December 29, 1820, DJSH vol. 4; and account of proceeds from Chacon v. 89 bales of cochineal, PSC, section 11, box 19, folder 84. On Sullivan's fees, see Stoughton v. Divina Pastora, marshal's return, USDC-MA, FRB, 9:545; Sullivan receipt, January 13, 1819, DJSBS, Don Juan Stoughton Financial Receipts, 1796–1820; and statement of W.B. Swett, et al., December 29, 1820, DJSH vol. 4. On Webster's fees, see Stoughton to Malagamba, December 29, 1818, DJSBS, DJS Correspondence, August to December 1818; and Sullivan receipt, January 13, 1819, DJSBS, DJS Financial Receipts, 1796–1820.

60. Account of proceeds from Chacon v. 89 bales of cochineal, PSC, section 11, box 19, folder 84; Sullivan to Stoughton, November 24, 1817, DJSBS, DJS Correspondence, 1817.

61. Mrs. Stoughton to James Drake, April 14, 1820 and November 7, 1820; William Sullivan to Mrs. Stoughton, January 1, 1820; Mrs. Stoughton to Don Anduaga, November 1821, DJSH vol. 4; and Stoughton v. Schooner Emilia, USDC-MA, FRB, 11:95.

62. Stoughton to James Drake, June 15, 1818; Stoughton to James Stoughton, May 27, 1819; Stoughton to John Bernabeu, May 28, 1819, DJSH vol. 4; and Davey v. 60 boxes of sugar, USDC-MA, FRB, 10:340–41.

63. Stoughton v. McLellan, deposition of Thomas McLellan; deposition of Arthur McLellan, USCC-MA, FRB, 13:178–81, 182–84.

64. Stoughton v. McLellan, deposition of Thomas McLellan, USCC-MA, FRB, 13:182–84; Stoughton v. Sundry specie from Industria Raffaelli, USDC-MA, FRB, 10:95; Stoughton v. 42 pipes of rum, USDC-MA, FRB, 11:17; and Stoughton v. Three boxes segars, USDC-ME, FRB, 4:210.

65. Stoughton to the Widow Roberts, May 23, 1817 and June 28, 1817, DJSH vol. 4. It is unclear whether Stoughton, as a Bostonite, had an inflated view of Story's position or whether he was actually an astute observer of the Court's internal dynamics.

66. Stoughton to Onis, January 24, 1818, DJSH vol. 4; Stoughton to the Widow Roberts, January 23, 1818; Stoughton to Thomas R. Tunis, February 9, 1818; and Stoughton to the Widow Roberts, April 6, 1818, DJSH vol. 4. For a detailed account of Stoughton's efforts, see Perrone, “Divina Pastora Prize Case.”

67. Stoughton v. Divina Pastora, libel, USDC-MA, FRB, 9:510. The Court ultimately dodged this question, finding that because the libel was “too informal and defective … to pronounce a final decree on the merits,” the case had be remanded to the district court to allow the libel to be amended. The Divina Pastora, 17 U.S. at 64–65.

68. Stoughton to the Widow Roberts, March 12, 1818; and Stoughton to James Stoughton, May 27, 1819, DJSH vol. 4.

69. Chaytor to Chacon, December 10, 1817, PSC, section 11 box 19 folder 83.

70. Chacon to Chaytor, December 15, 1817, PSC, section 11, box 19, folder 82; Chacon to Tazewell, July 26, 1817, PSC, section 11, box 17, folder 57. On Tazewell's friendship with Monroe, see for example the letters in the Library of Congress, Monroe Papers, series 4, box 1, Typescripts, 1795–1830.

71. Account of proceeds from Chacon v. 89 bales of cochineal, PSC, section 11, box 19, folder 84.

72. La Conception, 19 U.S. at 239; The Arragonte Barcelones, 20 U.S. at 518–19; and La Nereyda, 21 U.S. at 168–70.

73. The Santissima Trinidad, 20 U.S. at 335–36, 349–54.

74. United States v. Hutchings, 26 F. Cas. 440.

75. The Santissima Trinidad, 20 U.S. at 337; The Josefa Segunda, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 338, 358–59 (1820); The Gran Para, 20 U.S. at 480; and United States v. Klintock, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 144, 149 (1820).

76. The Estrella, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 298, 307–09 (1819); L'Invincible, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 238, 261, (1816); and Findlay v. The William, 9 F. Cas. 57, 60–61 (D. Pa. 1793).

77. La Nereyda, 21 U.S. at 166; The Estrella, 17 U.S. at 307–09; and The Divina Pastora, 17 U.S. at 63–65.

78. The Bello Corrunes, 19 U.S. at 171–72; and Talbot v. Jansen, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 133, 155 (1795).

79. The Santissima Trinidad, 20 U.S. at 349–50.

80. Ariel Lavinbuk, “Rethinking Early Judicial Involvement in Foreign Affairs: An Empirical Analysis of the Supreme Court's Docket,” Yale Law Journal 114 (2005): 877–78; USDC-MD, admiralty docket books, 1816–1820; and NARA, Admiralty Case Files of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 1790–1842, microfilm M919.

81. The Santissima Trinidad, 20 U.S. at 338–40; The Divina Pastora, 17 U.S. at 64–65; The Santa Maria, 23 U.S. at 443–45; The Palmyra, 23 U.S. (10 Wheat.) 502, 503–04 (1825); The Gran Para, 23 U.S. at 499–501; and The Monte Allegre, 22 U.S. at 643–48.

82. David DeForest to Lynch, Zimmerman and Co., July 2, 1820 and November 9, 1820; and DeForest to William Crawford, August 1, 1820, Yale University, DeForest Papers. A number of privateers, however, continued fighting the Spanish on the high seas, serving as officers in the navies of the revolutionary republics. Head, “Sailing for Spanish America,” 118–21, 200–208.

83. On the decline of privateering in the nineteenth century, see Parrillo, “The De-Privatization of American Warfare.”

84. For a similar perspective on British efforts to oppose French privateering in the 1790s, see Sloss, “Judicial Foreign Policy.” On lawfare generally, see Myers, Erika J., “Conquering Peace: Military Commissions as a Lawfare Strategy in the Mexican War,” American Journal of Criminal Law 35:2 Spring (2008): 201–40Google Scholar and the collected essays in Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 43 (2010)Google Scholar.

85. The Bello Corrunes, 19 U.S. at 168–69.