The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Trent affair
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: The Trent affair
Author: Thomas L. Harris
Release date: January 12, 2026 [eBook #77681]
Language: English
Original publication: Indianapolis: The Bowen-Merrill Company, 1896
Credits: deaurider, PrimeNumber and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE TRENT AFFAIR ***
THE TRENT AFFAIR
INCLUDING A
REVIEW OF ENGLISH AND AMERICAN RELATIONS
AT THE BEGINNING OF THE CIVIL WAR
BY THOMAS L. HARRIS, A. M.
WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY
JAMES A. WOODBURN, PH. D.
Professor of American History in the Indiana University.
[Illustration]
INDIANAPOLIS AND KANSAS CITY:
THE BOWEN-MERRILL COMPANY
1896.
Copyright 1896
BY
THE BOWEN-MERRILL COMPANY.
CONTENTS.
INTRODUCTION 7
CHAPTER.
I. Relations with England 11
II. English Sympathy for the Confederacy 21
III. The Question of Confederate Independence 31
IV. The Queen’s Neutrality Proclamation 37
V. English Negotiations with the Insurgents 53
VI. Mr. Seward’s Circular to the Governors of the Northern
States 61
VII. The First Efforts of the Confederates for Recognition
Abroad 69
VIII. James Murray Mason and John Slidell. The Nature
and Merits of Their Mission 79
IX. The Departure of the Commissioners for Europe 91
X. The Seizure 97
XI. The Effect in America 117
XII. The Effect in England 137
XIII. The British Demand 163
XIV. Consideration of the British Demand in America 175
XV. Views of Other European Nations Concerning the
Trent Case 195
XVI. The Answer of the Federal Government 211
XVII. The Surrender of Mason and Slidell 225
XVIII. Earl Russell’s View of the American Position 239
XIX. International Law in the Trent Case 247
XX. Reflections on the Course of the British Government 269
INTRODUCTION.
The history of the diplomatic relations between Great Britain and the
United States suggests an interesting and valuable field to the student
of Anglo-American history and international law. It is a fertile field,
still largely unworked. No one, so far as I know, has yet ventured upon
an exhaustive and connected discussion of the important subjects which
this theme involves. One of the most interesting and unwritten chapters
in this history is to be found in the relations between Great Britain
and the United States during our civil war, as illustrated in the case
of the Trent and the discussion to which this case gave rise. Much has
been written on this celebrated case. Mr. Harris has set for himself
the task of examining the literature of the subject, of reviewing
the original material, and placing in brief and accessible shape the
important and essential features of the discussion. All who wish a
ready access to a faithful review and complete resume of this notable
chapter in our foreign relations will appreciate his service.
The right of search is historically a very interesting subject. On
two notable occasions it brought us into serious collision with Great
Britain. One of these occasions was in the war of 1812, the other in
the affair of the Trent in 1861. The war of 1812 is to be studied
chiefly as a part of the history of international law. The reader who
turns his attention to this war will, therefore, desire to bring within
his view the history of the affair of the Trent. The merits of the two
discussions, in 1806-1812 and 1861, are inseparable. Mr. Madison and
Mr. Seward, the American contributors to the diplomatic literature of
this discussion, are to be considered together. It will thus be seen
that a competent account of the case of the Trent and the principles of
public law which it involves brings within the view a pretty wide range
of historical discussion.
One of the prominent causes of the war 1812 was the right, then claimed
by Great Britain, of searching the vessels of the United States upon
the high seas for British subjects, with the purpose of impressing
them into the service of the British navy. The way in which Great
Britain exercised this power of search did more than all other causes
combined to arouse irritation and antagonism in America. Mr. Webster,
in his correspondence with Lord Ashburton, in 1842, gave an American
definition of this assumed right. “England asserts the right,” says Mr.
Webster, “of impressing British subjects in time of war out of neutral
ships and of deciding by her visiting officers who among the crew of
such merchant ships are British subjects. She asserts this as a legal
prerogative of the crown, which prerogative is alleged to be founded on
the English law of perpetual and indissoluble allegiance of the subject
and his obligation, under all circumstances, and for his whole life, to
render military service to the crown whenever required.”
Great Britain did not renounce this right at Ghent in 1814, nor has she
at any time since specifically surrendered it. But the right of search,
for such a purpose as England then asserted it, is now obsolete. It
is safe to say that it will never again be attempted in time of war
against any vessel flying a neutral flag. American diplomacy has
contributed not a little to this desirable result.
In 1861 a public armed vessel of the United States forcibly searched an
English mail steamer for the purpose of recovering certain gentlemen
who were claimed as citizen subjects of the United States. The act
was not one of hostility toward England, nor as an act of search was
it nearly so provoking as many which had been previously committed
by Great Britain against us. The case arising out of this seizure
is a subject of the first importance in our national history, and
the result of the case, with the diplomatic discussion between Mr.
Seward and Lord Lyons, may be said to have finally established, as
permanent public law, the principle underlying the preceding historic
American contention on this subject. The history of the case, its
political aspects, the diplomatic discussions to which it gave rise,
the principles of law which it has helped to establish, the opinions
of eminent publicists, the conclusions of international law, and the
relation of the case to preceding discussions,--these themes indicate
the scope of Mr. Harris’s essay.
JAMES A. WOODBURN.
_Indiana University._
CHAPTER I.
RELATIONS WITH ENGLAND.
Undisturbed relations have not always existed between the two great
branches of the Anglo-Saxon race on opposite sides of the Atlantic.
The English colonies in the New World quarreled continually with their
mother country. Finally revolution and war enabled the colonists to
free themselves from English rule, although causes of dispute have
ever continued to exist. A continuous record of the international
difficulties between the United States and England would form no
inconsiderable part of American history.
An almost unbroken succession of disputes has occupied the attention
of statesmen in both countries for more than a century. The Federal
government had scarcely been organized when the first serious cause of
trouble arose. England claimed the right forcibly to visit and search
American merchant vessels on the high seas in time of peace. Thousands
of American citizens having been impressed into the British naval
service, the arbitrament of war was resorted to. This did not decide
the matter. The abstract right of search and seizure was steadily
maintained by England for almost half a century after the close of the
war of 1812. An attempt to put it into practice again off the coast of
Cuba in the spring of 1858 caused an outburst of popular indignation
in every part of the United States, and American war vessels in
Cuban waters were immediately ordered to resent such outrages at all
hazards. This looked like war, and, without further delay, Great
Britain abandoned the claim for which she had so long contended.[1]
Boundary disputes were a cause of much agitation for many years.
Long and tedious negotiation was required to adjust the northwestern
boundary of the United States between Maine and New Brunswick. Although
the American claims in this region were ably presented and fairly
established, British writers have repeatedly asserted that the United
States government, in this instance, accomplished its purposes by means
which were unfair, unjust, and entirely unworthy of modern diplomacy.[2]
Scarcely had a treaty been concluded by which this boundary was settled
when the Oregon question became one of great prominence, and in 1844,
the alliterative campaign cry of “fifty-four forty or fight” testified
to the serious character of the dispute. A settlement was finally
effected by conceding most of the English claims, although ex-President
John Quincy Adams and other equally noted Americans protested against
what seemed to them a disgraceful surrender. The details of the various
controversies caused by English conduct during the American civil
war are fresh in the memory of a generation still living. In our own
time fishery disputes have tested the skill of diplomatists in both
countries.
There has probably never been a time, however brief, in the history
of the United States when absolutely no cause of difference existed
between the two nations. At the present date (1895) one hundred seven
presidential messages reviewing the state of the country have been
submitted to the American congress at the opening of its regular
sessions. It is a significant fact that seventy-eight of these
messages--almost three-fourths of them--have called the attention of
congress to difficulties of more or less importance with Great Britain.
To the seventy-eight messages of the latter class every president has
contributed except Garfield, Taylor, and William Henry Harrison.
Toward the close of the year 1860, however, British and American
international affairs had assumed a much more favorable aspect than
usual. All of the most perplexing and dangerous questions which had so
long disturbed the relations of the two countries had been peaceably
and finally settled. This result gave the greatest satisfaction to
the people and government of the United States. In his message to
congress at the opening of the session in December, 1860, President
Buchanan said: “Our relations with Great Britain are of the most
friendly character. Since the commencement of my administration the
two dangerous questions arising from the Clayton-Bulwer treaty and
from the right of search claimed by the British government have been
amicably and honorably adjusted. The discordant constructions of the
Clayton-Bulwer treaty, which at different periods of the discussion
bore a threatening aspect, have resulted in a final settlement entirely
satisfactory to this government.
“It must be a source of sincere satisfaction to all classes of our
fellow-citizens and especially to those engaged in foreign commerce
that the claim on the part of Great Britain forcibly to visit and
search American merchant vessels on the high seas in time of peace has
been abandoned. This was by far the most dangerous question to the
peace of the two nations which has existed since the war of 1812. While
it remained open they might at any moment have been precipitated into a
war.
“The only question of any importance which still remains open is the
disputed title between the two governments to the Island of San Juan
in the vicinity of Washington territory.” It was evident that both
countries were expecting this question to be settled without any
trouble.
The president also said in the same message: “The recent visit of the
Prince of Wales in a private character to the people of this country
has proved to be a most auspicious event. In its consequences it can
not fail to increase the kindred and kindly feelings which I trust
may ever actuate the government and people of both countries in their
political and social intercourse with each other.”
Lord Lyons, the British minister at Washington, truly said of this
message that its language was the most cordial in character of
any which had ever appeared in such a communication. The British
government and people appeared to appreciate the friendship and good
feeling for them which prevailed in the United States at that time.
As an evidence of this fact Queen Victoria sent her son, the Prince
of Wales, on a visit to the United States in the latter part of the
year 1860--the event referred to in President Buchanan’s message. The
Prince was received everywhere with the hearty and enthusiastic welcome
which was due to such a distinguished personage. After the visit had
terminated, the British minister at Washington was directed to express
the thanks of her majesty and to say to the president and citizens
of the United States that one of the main objects which she had in
view in sanctioning the visit of her son to America was to prove “the
sincerity of those sentiments of esteem and regard which her majesty
and all classes of her subjects entertain for the kindred race which
occupies so distinguished a position in the community of nations.” “Her
majesty trusts,” continued the British minister, “that the feeling of
confidence and affection, of which late events have proved beyond all
question the existence, will long continue to prevail between the two
countries to their mutual advantage and to the general interests of
civilization and humanity. I am commanded to state to the president
that the queen would be gratified by his making known generally to
the citizens of the United States her grateful sense of the kindness
with which they received her son, who has returned to England deeply
impressed with all he saw during his progress through the states, and
more especially so with the friendly and cordial good-will manifested
towards him on every occasion and by all classes of the community.”[3]
This message was promptly answered by the American assistant secretary
of state, who said among other things: “I am instructed by the
president to express the gratification with which he has learned
how correctly her majesty has appreciated the spirit in which his
royal highness was received throughout the republic, and the cordial
manifestation of that spirit by the people of the United States which
accompanied him in every step of his progress. Her majesty has justly
recognized that the visit of her son aroused the kind and generous
sympathies of our citizens, and, if I may so speak, has created an
almost personal interest in the fortunes of the royalty which he so
well represents. The president trusts that this sympathy and interest
towards the future representative of the sovereignty of Great Britain
are at once an evidence and a guaranty of that consciousness of common
interest and mutual regard which have bound in the past, and will in
the future bind together more strongly than treaties, the feelings and
the fortunes of the two nations which represent the enterprise, the
civilization, and the constitutional liberty of the same great race.”[4]
While the Prince of Wales was in the United States the London Times
described his visit to the tomb of Washington at Mount Vernon and his
planting a chestnut while there. The closing paragraph read as follows:
“It seemed, when the royal youth closed the earth around the little
germ, that he was burying the last faint trace of discord between us
and our great brethren in the west.” Other English newspapers, in
commenting upon the prince’s welcome in America, gave utterance to
sentiments which were extremely cordial in character. Two extracts from
leading London papers may be noticed. “Thus we believe an alliance has
been consolidated which will endure for the mutual benefit, not only of
the two nations, but of the civilized world.”[5] “At no time could we
desire more earnestly than we do now the close alliance of the great
Anglo-Saxon family.”[6]
Opportunities were soon to be offered for testing the sincerity of
those recently expressed “sentiments of esteem and regard which her
majesty and all classes of her subjects entertain for the kindred
race which occupies so distinguished a position in the community of
nations.” South Carolina seceded December 17, 1860. Other states
followed her example. A hostile government was organized within the
territory of the United States. A war cloud was rapidly gathering upon
the American political horizon. Lord Lyons duly reported all of these
occurrences to his government. On February 4, 1861, in a communication
addressed to Lord John Russell, the British minister for foreign
affairs, Lord Lyons gave a detailed account of Mr. Seward’s views
concerning the state of the country and of his plans for securing the
peaceable return of the seceding states to “the confederation.” In this
dispatch the American union is characterized as a “confederation.”
Since the adoption of the constitution no such use of the word
“confederation” had ever been made in any diplomatic communication. It
was indicative of the English view of the nature of the American union.
Lord John Russell replied to the above communication just two weeks
before Mr. Lincoln was inaugurated. After saying that the success or
failure of Mr. Seward’s plans were matters of deep interest to her
majesty’s government and that it was not their duty to offer advice,
Lord Russell said: “Supposing, however, that Mr. Lincoln, acting under
bad advice, should endeavor to provide excitement for the public mind
by raising questions with Great Britain, her majesty’s government
feel no hesitation as to the policy they would pursue. They would in
the first place be very forbearing. They would show by their acts how
highly they value the relations of peace and amity with the United
States. But they would take care to let the government which multiplied
provocations and sought quarrels understand that their forbearance
sprung from the consciousness of strength and not from the timidity
of weakness. They would warn a government which was making political
capital out of blustering demonstrations that our patience might be
tried too far.”[7]
It is not easy to understand why Lord Russell should make use of such
language at this time. Only seventy-two days before this dispatch was
written, the most cordial feelings of “confidence and affection” for
the American people had been professed in the communication concerning
the visit of the Prince of Wales, and in the meantime not an unkind
word had been used in the correspondence of either government. His
lordship may have seen in a settlement of the American domestic
difficulties something which was unfavorable to British interests.
The occasion certainly was not one which called for an offensive and
unprovoked threat from the British minister for foreign affairs. He did
not lose the opportunity, however, to utter an official warning to the
American government that British patience “might be tried too far.”
From many similar instances in the official career of that
statesman, it is certain that Lord Russell himself never lost a
favorable opportunity to “make political capital out of blustering
demonstrations.”
AUTHORITIES AND REFERENCES.
1. Annual messages of the presidents of the United States, 1789-1894.
2. Blaine, James G.: Twenty Years of Congress.
3. Diplomatic correspondence with Great Britain, 1860-1861.
4. London newspapers: The Times, News and Post, November, 1860.
5. London Quarterly Review, No. 221.
6. Schuyler, Eugene: American Diplomacy.
7. Westminster Review, Vol. XXI.
8. Winsor: Narrative and Critical History of America.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] See Schuyler’s American Diplomacy, pp. 262-3.
[2] London Quarterly Review, No. 221, p. 261; Westminster Review, Vol.
XXI, pp. 222-3. For a discussion of the northwestern boundary question,
see Winsor’s Narrative and Critical History of America, Vol. VII, p.
180.
[3] Lord Lyons to Gen. Cass, U. S. secretary of state, Dec. 8, 1860.
[4] Mr. Trescot to Lord Lyons, Dec. 11, 1860.
[5] London Post, Nov. 16, 1860.
[6] London News, Nov. 16, 1860.
[7] Earl Russell to Lord Lyons, Feb. 20, 1861.
CHAPTER II.
ENGLISH SYMPATHY FOR THE CONFEDERACY.
From the beginning of the secession movement the central aim of the
Federal government and of the loyal people of the United States was to
preserve the Union. It was the principle of union which had brought
the American colonies together and enabled them to establish their
independence. It was only after a “more perfect union” had been formed
that prosperity and power at home and influence abroad had come to the
United States as a nation. It was clearly seen that, if the principle
of secession were once established, there would be nothing to prevent
the great American commonwealth from crumbling into fragments. The
honorable position of the United States among the nations of the world,
as well as all of the good results at home which had been gained by
more than three-quarters of a century of union, would be irretrievably
lost. But these were not the only bad effects likely to follow
successful secession. It was the avowed intention of the leaders of
this movement to establish in the southern states a republic whose very
corner-stone was slavery. With an immense slave population, with almost
absolute control of the cotton supply of the world, with a people that
took pride in the military art, with able and experienced leaders, the
founding and future success of such a republic would have been attended
by evil consequences which no one could foretell.
For these reasons the government and loyal people of the United
States earnestly hoped that the secession movement would not receive
any support or encouragement from foreign nations, especially from
England. The members of the English cabinet at that time were all
bitterly opposed to slavery and had been in full sympathy with the
great movements which had utterly destroyed it within the limits of the
empire.
The existence of slavery in the South had caused much annoyance to
the English government and people. Negro subjects of the queen were
being constantly kidnapped in southern ports and sold into slavery. To
obtain redress in such cases was impossible. The escape of fugitive
slaves into British territory was another cause of much trouble. Only
a short time before the secession movement began all England had
been shocked by the report that a British captain had been tarred
and feathered at Charleston for allowing a negro to sit down at the
table with him in his own vessel. All of these matters, however,
were quickly forgotten. From the very beginning it was evident that
English sympathy was with the South. It was apparently forgotten that
such a course meant support and encouragement for human slavery--that
institution which was so abhorred by the people and statesmen of
England. Consistency in this matter alone would seem to indicate that
the British government and people could not afford to sympathize with
any sort of movement which had for its principal object the founding
of a new republic especially to perpetuate and extend slavery. None
of these considerations, however, seemed to exert any influence. With
rare exceptions, the press, the people, and the government were heart
and soul with the South in its efforts for the dismemberment of the
American commonwealth. Mr. Justin McCarthy says: “The vast majority of
what are called the governing classes were on the side of the South.
London club life was virtually all southern. The most powerful papers
in London, and the most popular papers as well, were open partisans of
the southern confederation.”[1] A writer in the Atlantic Monthly for
November, 1861, says: “We have read at least three English newspapers
for each week that has passed since our troubles began; we have been a
reader of these papers for a series of years. In not one of them have
we met the sentence or the line which pronounces hopefully, with bold
assurance for the renewed life of our Union. In by far the most of them
there is reiterated the most positive and dogged averment that there is
no future for us.”
Even the great and conservative English quarterlies aided the
newspapers in their efforts to encourage and justify the secession
movement. A writer in the Edinburgh Review discussed the situation in
the United States. His ability to do this may be readily inferred from
his assertion that, “under the existing constitution of the United
States which the freemen of the North are in arms now to defend,
slavery must be considered to form a part and parcel of the law of the
Union.” To establish this proposition he then quoted from an amendment
to the constitution which, he said, provided that that instrument
could never in future be so amended as to give congress power to
abolish or interfere with slavery in any state. This, the writer said,
was “the very last amendment or addition to the constitution passed on
the 3d March of this year, that is, on the eve of President Lincoln’s
inauguration.” In reviewing the condition of the people of the North he
said: “They are fighting for territorial dominion.” In defining for his
readers just what was meant by “territorial dominion,” he proceeded to
tell them that it was “the power to enforce the will of the North over
the South by superior force--to compel the minority, which is a local
majority, to submit, in a word, to command the country and to subdue
the people. If this be not the object for which the Americans of the
Union are contending against the disunionists, we confess our inability
to apprehend it, for no lesser object could justify a war conducted on
such a scale.”[2]
A writer in the Quarterly Review said: “We believe the conquest of the
South to be a hopeless dream, and the reunion of the states in one
all-powerful republic an impossibility.
“There is verge and room enough on the vast continent of America for
two or three, or even more, powerful republics, and each may flourish
undisturbed, if so inclined, without being a source of disquiet to its
neighbors. There will be no loss of anything which conduces to the
general happiness of mankind. For the contest on the part of the North
now is undisguisedly for empire.
“As to the attempt to subjugate the Confederate States, supposing it
succeeded, what then? Is the North prepared to hold the South by the
same tenure that Austria holds Venetia? And is there a statesman in the
Union who believes that in future it could be held in any other way?
“But the idea of a federal republic of which the one-half is in deadly
hostility to the other, and coerced into a hateful partnership,
involves a practical contradiction. It would no longer be the union of
free states but a tyranny.”[3] The same writer confidently predicted
secession among the northern states on account of excessive taxation
and the hardships incident to war.
A writer in the Westminster Review said: “The North is fighting to
defend an abstraction--the constitution--the South to defend his home,
his wife and his children.
“Without nicely balancing the virtues of the contending parties, they
(Englishmen) can not help believing that moderation, justice and
national honor will find ampler development in a divided republic.”[4]
Early in 1861 a prominent Englishman of Liverpool published a book
designed to inform the British public concerning the American
situation. This book was extensively circulated and did much to
influence public opinion in England. The most extreme views of the
secessionists were upheld and defended. The attempt to restore the
Union was denounced as a lamentable delusion which had been undertaken
as a result of excitement in the North. The author’s position is well
stated in the following quotation: “Secession is a just and clear
constitutional right of the states, and no violation of any enactment
of the Federal compact.”[5]
The queen in her speech from the throne, February 5, 1861, referred
to American affairs and expressed a conventional wish that the
“differences might be susceptible of a satisfactory adjustment.”
Concerning this expression Mr. Toumlin Smith soon afterward said:
“Those last loose words are characteristic of the very loose notions
that are common in England on the subject of what used to be the United
States of North America. It is, from the very nature of the facts,
no other than impossible that the ‘differences’ can be ‘susceptible’
(whatever that means) of satisfactory adjustment.”[6]
Such expressions of opinion from these various sources, advanced so
early in the great struggle and uttered with such confidence, were on
many accounts most unwarranted and mischievous. The press was a most
powerful factor in molding and directing English public opinion in
favor of the Confederacy. Its course also tended to prejudice the Union
cause in the eyes of the world and, at the same time, to establish the
insurgent cause as a just one. This produced a corresponding degree of
discouragement among the friends of the Union.
A very large majority of the most prominent public men of England
never lost an opportunity to express unfavorable opinions concerning
the northern cause. The following quotations are indicative of the
sentiment which prevailed among them:
Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton: “I venture to predict that the younger men
here present will live to see not two, but at least four, separate and
sovereign commonwealths arising out of those populations which a year
ago united their legislation under one president and carried their
merchandise under one flag. I believe that such separation will be
attended with happy results to the safety of Europe and the development
of American civilization. If it could have been possible that as
population and wealth increased all the vast continent of America,
with her mighty sea-board and the fleets which her increasing ambition
as well as her extending commerce would have formed and armed, could
have remained under one form of government, in which the executive
has little or no control over a populace exceedingly adventurous
and excitable, why, then America would have hung over Europe like a
gathering and destructive thunder cloud. No single kingdom in Europe
could have been strong enough to maintain itself against a nation that
had consolidated the gigantic resources of a quarter of the globe.”[7]
Lord John Russell: “The struggle is on the one side for empire, and on
the other for power.”[8] On another occasion he said: “On the one hand,
President Lincoln, in behalf of the northern portion of the _late_
United States, has issued a proclamation declaratory of an intention
to subject the ports of the southern portion of the _late_ Union to a
vigorous blockade,”[9] etc.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: “I see in America the trial of democracy and
its failure. I believe that the dissolution of the Union is inevitable,
and that men now before me will live to see an aristocracy established
in America.”[10]
Sir John Pakington, M. P.: “From President Lincoln downward there is
not a man in America who will venture to tell us that he really thinks
it possible that by the force of circumstances the North can hope to
compel the South to again join them in constituting the United States.”
Right Honorable William E. Gladstone, chancellor of the exchequer: “The
Federal government can never succeed in putting down the rebellion. If
it should, it would only be the preface and introduction of political
difficulties far greater than the war itself.”[11] On another and later
occasion he said that the president of the Southern Confederacy, Mr.
Jefferson Davis, “had made an army, had made a navy and, more than
that, had made a nation.”[12]
In a speech delivered at Dover, in the autumn of 1861, Lord Palmerston,
the English premier, spoke in a taunting manner of the “fast running
which signalized the battle of Bull Run.”[13]
Soon after the beginning of the American civil war, Edward A. Freeman,
the distinguished English historian, published a noted work, the title
page of which reads as follows: “History of federal government from
the foundation of the Achaian League to the disruption of the United
States.” A list of examples of federal government is given. One of them
is, “The United States, A. D. 1778-1862.”
These expressions from the leading public men of England leave
no doubt as to the sentiments of the influential classes in that
country. They hoped for the triumph of slavery, the success of the
secession principle, and the division and ruin of the great American
commonwealth. Such sentiments were, doubtless, inspired by jealousy and
hatred of America, and by the thought that English commercial and other
interests would be greatly advanced by the success of the Confederacy.
AUTHORITIES AND REFERENCES.
1. Atlantic Monthly, November, 1861.
2. Blaine, James G.: Twenty Years of Congress.
3. De Gasparin: L’Amérique devant l’Europe.
4. Edinburgh Review, October, 1861.
5. Freeman, E. A.: History of Federal Government.
6. London Quarterly Review, No. 221.
7. Lossing, B. J.: Civil War in America.
8. McCarthy, Justin: History of Our Own Times.
9. Parliamentary Papers, 1862, Vol. LXVII
10. Russell’s Life of Gladstone.
11. Spence, Jas.: The American Union.
12. Westminster Review, Vol. XXI.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] History of Our Own Times, Vol. II, pp. 224-225.
[2] Edinburgh Review, Oct., 1861.
[3] London Quarterly Review, No. 221.
[4] Westminster Review, Vol. XXI, p. 212.
[5] Spence’s “The American Union,” p. 246.
[6] Parliamentary Remembrancer, Vol. IV, p. 3.
[7] From an address before the Agricultural Society of Hertford County,
September 25, 1861.
[8] Speech at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 1861.
[9] Extract from dispatch of Lord J. Russell to Lord Cowley, British
minister at Paris, dated Foreign Office, May 6, 1861. See Parliamentary
Papers, 1862, Vol. LXVII, p. 531. The italics are the author’s.
[10] Speech at Worcester, 1861.
[11] Speech at Edinburgh, January, 1862.
[12] Speech at Newcastle, October 9, 1862. See Russell’s Life of
Gladstone, p. 155; also Justin McCarthy’s History of Our Own Times,
Vol. II, p. 225.
[13] See De Gasparin’s account of this matter in his “L’Amérique devant
l’Europe,” chapter on the conduct of England in the beginning of the
American civil war.
CHAPTER III.
THE QUESTION OF CONFEDERATE INDEPENDENCE.
When the southern states began to secede, the attitude of foreign
governments toward them was a matter of much concern to the Federal
government. At that time any acts of foreign powers looking toward
a recognition of the seceding states would have increased the
embarrassment of the United States government and tended to give
encouragement to the rebellion.
A few days prior to the close of President Buchanan’s administration,
his secretary of state, Jeremiah S. Black, sent a circular letter to
all United States ministers at foreign courts, requesting them to do
all that was necessary and proper to prevent the independence of the
seceding states from being recognized by the governments to which
they were respectively accredited. Among other things Mr. Black said:
“This government has not relinquished its constitutional jurisdiction
within the territory of those states, nor does it desire to do so. It
must be very evident that it is the right of this government to ask
of all foreign powers that the latter should take no steps which may
tend to encourage the revolutionary movements of the seceding states
or increase the danger of disaffection in those which still remain
loyal.”[1]
When this matter was brought to the attention of Lord Russell by Mr.
Dallas, the American minister at London, his lordship said that while
he regretted the secession, he was not in a position to bind the
British government to any particular course of action.
Immediately upon becoming secretary of state, Mr. Seward sent a second
circular to the United States ministers abroad, repeating with renewed
emphasis the instructions of his predecessor, and urging them to “the
exercise of the greatest possible diligence and fidelity on your
part to counteract and prevent the designs of those who would invoke
foreign intervention to embarrass or overthrow the republic.” He also
suggested that it would be greatly to the advantage of foreign nations
for the Union to be preserved, and that the revolt, should it break up
the Union, “might tend by its influence to disturb and unsettle the
existing systems of government in other parts of the world and arrest
that progress of improvement and civilization which marks the era in
which we live.” Mr. Seward also expressed his confidence that these
with other considerations would prevent foreign governments “from
yielding to solicitations to intervene in any unfriendly way in the
domestic concerns of our country.” “You will be prompt,” continued
Mr. Seward, “in transmitting to this department any information you
may receive on the subject of the attempts which have suggested this
communication.”[2]
When this dispatch was communicated to Lord Russell, he replied that
the government was in no hurry to recognize the secession as final,
but that he thought the matter not ripe for decision one way or the
other.[3]
His lordship also declined to discuss the subject further at that time.
No words of sympathy were uttered, no good wishes for the preservation
of the Union were extended, but only an answer which said in substance
that England was ready to acknowledge Confederate independence
whenever it was expedient to do so. Lord Russell’s answer did not even
assure the United States that England meant to observe that absolute
neutrality which international obligation would impose.
Most answers from other countries in response to Mr. Seward’s
circular were quite different from that which England gave. It will
be sufficient to notice three of them. Prussia “from the principle of
unrelenting opposition to all revolutionary movements would be the
last to recognize any _de facto_ government of the disaffected states
of the American Union.”[4] Austria “was not inclined to recognize _de
facto_ governments anywhere.”[5] Spain “would have nothing to do with
the rebel party in the United States, in any sense.”[6] Very favorable
responses were received also from most other countries. Russia, Italy
and Switzerland sent assurances of the warmest sympathy for the cause
of the Union. Individual expressions from great men outside England
were not wanting in the beginning of the struggle. On September 10,
1861, Garibaldi, the Italian patriot, addressed a letter to the United
States consul at Antwerp, in which he expressed an intention to come to
America and enlist in the Federal army, if circumstances would permit
him to do so.
When Charles Francis Adams became the American minister to England,
he was instructed to take a still more decided stand against the
recognition of the independence of the Confederate States. Said Mr.
Seward in his letter of instructions to Mr. Adams: “You will in no
case listen to any suggestions of compromise by this government under
foreign auspices, with its discontented citizens. If, as the president
does not at all apprehend, you shall unhappily find her majesty’s
government tolerating the application of the so-called seceding states,
or wavering about it, you will not leave them to suppose for a moment
that they can grant that application and remain the friends of the
United States. You may even assure them promptly in that case that
if they determine to recognize, they may at the same time prepare to
enter into an alliance with the enemies of this republic. You alone
will represent your country at London, and you will represent the
whole of it there. When you are asked to divide that duty with others,
diplomatic relations between the government of Great Britain and this
government will be suspended, and will remain so until it shall be seen
which of the two is most strongly intrenched in the confidence of their
respective nations and of mankind.”[7]
At another time when referring to the matter of recognizing Confederate
independence, Mr. Seward said: “I have never for a moment believed that
such a recognition could take place without producing immediately a
war between the United States and all of the recognizing powers. I have
not supposed it possible that the British government could fail to
see this, and at the same time I have sincerely believed the British
government must, in its inmost heart, be as averse from such a conflict
as I know this government to be.”[8]
English sympathy for the South was manifested at first not only by
expressions of opinion from the press and public men of that country,
but also by efforts to have the independence of the Confederacy
immediately recognized.
On March 4, 1861, while the ceremonies of Mr. Lincoln’s inauguration
were being conducted at Washington, Mr. Gregory, member of parliament
for Galway, arose in his place in the House of Commons and gave notice
of a motion to recognize the independence of the Confederate States of
America.[9] At that date the organization of the Confederate government
had been perfected only three weeks, and Mr. Gregory’s knowledge of the
matter had been received certainly not more than ten days before the
notice of his motion was given. The notice was renewed on April 16,
1861. The matter was brought before the house several times during the
session, but it was finally postponed indefinitely because the Commons
thought it inexpedient to act upon it at that time.
While the matter was before the house, Mr. Gregory published a letter
in the London Times in which he stated the reasons for immediate
recognition of the Confederacy. He thought it would do much toward
breaking up the slave trade which he asserted was “mainly carried on
by ships sailing from northern ports, and floated by northern capital,
that it would ameliorate the condition of slavery, secure peace and
freedom of trade.” He also regarded it as a just retaliation against
the North for having enacted the Morrill tariff, and as a vindication
of the right of a people to assert their independence. Mr. Gregory
concluded his letter with the strong conviction that the recognition of
the Confederacy by both England and France just then “would cause the
war party in the North to pause before plunging their countrymen deeper
into the sad struggle.”[10]
It is evident from the facts already presented, and the opinions
referred to, that it was neither the righteousness of the northern
cause nor lack of sympathy for the South that prevented an early
recognition of the Confederacy by England. It was thought to be
inexpedient, and perhaps not quite safe to recognize the independence
of the Confederate States, otherwise there would have been no
hesitation in doing it.
AUTHORITIES AND REFERENCES.
1. Diplomatic correspondence with Great Britain, 1861.
2. Notice Book House of Commons, 1861.
3. Pollard, E. A.: The Lost Cause.
4. Senate Ex. Doc.: 2d Session 37th Congress, Vol. I.
5. Seward’s Works, Vol. V.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Mr. Black to U. S. ministers abroad, February 28, 1861.
[2] Mr. Seward to the U. S. ministers abroad, March 9, 1861.
[3] Mr. Dallas to Mr. Seward, April 9, 1861.
[4] Mr. Wright to Mr. Seward, May 8, 1861.
[5] Mr. Jones to Mr. Seward, April 15, 1861.
[6] Mr. Perry to Mr. Seward, June 13, 1861.
[7] Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams, April, 1861.
[8] Seward’s Works, Vol. V, p. 294.
[9] See Notice Book, House of Commons, 1861.
[10] Pollard’s Lost Cause, pp. 126-7.
CHAPTER IV.
THE QUEEN’S NEUTRALITY PROCLAMATION.
Before the lapse of sixty days after the beginning of Mr. Lincoln’s
administration, Fort Sumter had surrendered after a severe bombardment;
seventy-five thousand troops had been called for; and a blockade of the
southern ports had been proclaimed. The insurrection was constantly
assuming greater proportions and a more threatening attitude. Of actual
war there had been none which resulted in bloodshed, except a street
fight between Federal soldiers and a Baltimore mob. These events,
however, tended to make the relation of foreign powers toward the two
governments in America much more delicate and hazardous.
Upon assuming the duties of the presidency, Mr. Lincoln had appointed
Charles Francis Adams minister to England. Mr. Adams was carefully
instructed to explain to the British government the position of the new
administration toward the seceded states and the relation which they
sustained to the Union. He was also instructed to say that there was
yet hope of a peaceable reconciliation and that, if it was desired to
promote the best interests of the United States, foreign powers should
be careful to commit no act of so-called neutrality, a move which
would only extend aid and sympathy to the secession cause.
It was expected that Mr. Adams would arrive in London early in May and
promptly present the views and policy of Mr. Lincoln to the British
government. In his report of an official interview with Lord Russell
concerning this matter, Mr. Dallas, Mr. Adams’s predecessor in office
at London, says: “I informed him that Mr. Adams had apprised me of his
intention to be on his way hither in the steamship ‘Niagara,’ which
left Boston on the 1st May, and that he would probably arrive in less
than two weeks, by the 12th or 15th inst. His lordship acquiesced
in the expediency of disregarding mere rumor and waiting the full
knowledge to be brought by my successor.”[1]
Notwithstanding this official assurance from Lord Russell that nothing
would be done prior to the arrival of Mr. Adams, a course of action was
immediately determined upon which seemed designed to give the greatest
possible offense to the United States.
On May 6, in answer to a question put to him in the House of Commons
concerning the proposed policy of Great Britain toward the Confederacy,
his lordship said: “The attorney and solicitor-general, and the queen’s
advocate, and the government have come to the opinion that the Southern
Confederacy of America, according to those principles which seem to
be just, must be treated as a belligerent.”[2] On May 13, the very
day that Mr. Adams landed at Liverpool and only a few hours before
he arrived in London, as if to exhibit the greatest possible lack
of courtesy toward him and the government which he represented, the
queen’s neutrality proclamation was issued. It forbade the enlistment
of all British subjects on land or sea in the service of either of
the contending parties and also warned her majesty’s subjects not to
carry officers, soldiers, dispatches, or any article of the nature
of contraband of war for the use or service of either the Federals
or Confederates. This constituted a complete recognition of the
Confederacy as a belligerent power, that is, as entitled, so far as
England was concerned, to all those exceptional rights and privileges
that international law assigns to sovereign states which are at war
with each other.
Perhaps a brief explanation of this matter would not be inappropriate
here. All sovereign, or independent, states are governed in their
relations toward each other by a collection of rules called
international law. These rules or laws are only precedents, maxims
and opinions which have acquired all the force of law from having
been generally accepted and acted upon and from a sense that it is a
matter of great and universal convenience to have some fixed standards
for adjusting the disputes of sovereign nations and regulating
their conduct toward each other. International law assigns to all
sovereign states certain rights, privileges and obligations which
are not extended to unrecognized communities or nations. In the
beginning of its career an insurgent state can not possess any of the
privileges which international law assigns to independent states. To
recognize the belligerency of such a state is to accord to it, by the
recognizing power, all of those exceptional war privileges and rights
which international law would give to it, if it were sovereign. Such
recognition carries with it no rights, privileges or conditions except
those necessary for conducting hostilities. Insurgents carrying on war
without being recognized as belligerents may be treated as rebels,
traitors and pirates. When such recognition has been extended to them,
they are no longer so regarded, and when captured are treated as
prisoners of war. When a foreign power recognizes the belligerency of
an insurgent government it thereby places that government and the one
with which the insurgents are at war upon an equality so far as war
privileges and duties are concerned. A case will serve to illustrate.
There was recently a civil war in Brazil. The insurgents were never
recognized as belligerents and hence were not entitled to any more
rights and privileges than traitors and pirates have. If the Brazilian
government had conceded belligerent rights to them, captured insurgents
would then have been entitled to all of the rights of prisoners of war.
Indeed such recognition would have clothed the insurgents, so far as
the Brazilian government was concerned, with all of the war powers,
privileges and duties that belong to a sovereign and independent state,
but it would have done nothing more.
The same advantages would have been secured to the insurgents, so
far as the United States was concerned, if the Federal government at
Washington had recognized them as belligerents. In all of their future
relations with the United States they would have been placed upon an
equal footing with the Brazilian government as regards all war rights,
privileges and duties. No other rights would have been conferred, for
a recognition of belligerency is only partial in character. No treaty
with the United States could have been concluded, neither could any
ambassador have been sent to this country, or one received from it.
A hasty recognition of this character by the United States or any other
foreign country would have been an act very unfriendly to the Brazilian
government.
The right of a foreign state to recognize the belligerency, or even the
independence, of an insurgent government, under certain conditions, can
not be questioned. The ends and purposes of such recognition, however,
may be quite different in character. They may be arranged under two
separate heads.
First. The recognition of a mere fact as it actually exists. Where a
state of war or of independence exists beyond doubt or question, it may
be recognized as a fact. It is not only the privilege but also the duty
of foreign states to recognize a state of war, or belligerency, after
such state exists in fact. It is not easy to define a state of war,
that is, to say precisely how much of force is required and how perfect
the organization must be in order to distinguish such a state from that
of mere insurrection. Language can not express the idea with exactness.
No one will say that a state of war existed during the Dorr rebellion
in Rhode Island in 1842, neither will it be pretended that such a state
did not exist while the American civil war was in progress. Recognition
should be accorded also to a government of whatever origin, after its
independence has been fully established. An insurgent government rarely
succeeds in achieving its independence at a blow. There is usually a
period of struggle and uncertainty during which it is very uncertain
whether the new order of things will prevail or not. While such a
state of uncertainty exists, it is neither prudent nor wise for neutral
nations to acknowledge the independence of an insurgent government,
since a fact should not be acknowledged in advance of its actual
existence.
Second. The recognition of belligerency or even of independence by
a foreign government may be accorded not simply to acknowledge an
existing fact but as a means to an end. Such an act would be very
unfriendly or even hostile toward the government against which the
insurgent power was opposed. France acknowledged the independence of
the United States as a means to achieve that result, not as an existing
fact.
In view of the foregoing principles and of the circumstances under
which the British neutrality proclamation was issued, it becomes
very evident that it was deliberately designed to aid and encourage
the insurgent cause in the United States, and, at the same time,
to discourage and depress the friends of the Union. The proofs are
manifest from an examination of the case.
1. Only seventy days before her majesty’s neutrality proclamation was
issued, Mr. Lincoln’s administration had assumed the responsibilities
of government at Washington. During the preceding administration all
departments of government there had become greatly demoralized, and
it was necessary to reorganize and purify them before any steps could
be taken to offer active resistance to the insurrection. Time enough
had not elapsed for the new administration to formulate its views
and develop its policy toward the impending difficulties. Although
these things were understood at London and Mr. Adams was hourly
expected there, yet the British government refused to grant the
brief time necessary for him to arrive and present the case of the
new administration, before determining upon its course of action. The
neutrality proclamation was issued with a haste which was “precipitate
and unprecedented,” as Mr. Adams afterward said. The friends of the
Union could not but regard it, in the language of Mr. Justin McCarthy,
“as an act of unseemly and even indecent haste, as evidence of an
overstrained anxiety to assist and encourage the southern rebels.”[3]
2. A state of war did not exist in the United States on May 13, 1861,
hence there was no occasion for a neutrality proclamation. From the
very nature of the case it would not be easy to say precisely when
such a state of war or belligerency did begin to exist, but the United
States itself, and not a foreign nation, was the proper authority
to pronounce judgment concerning this matter. At the time mentioned
above, belligerent rights had not been conceded to the insurgents by
the Federal government. The “Savannah,” a Confederate armed steamer,
was captured June 3, 1861. Her crew, together with the crews of other
such vessels that had been captured, were tried for piracy in a United
States court, and, in at least one case, a conviction was obtained.[4]
If the belligerency of the South had been recognized by the United
States government at that time, such prosecutions and conviction in a
Federal court would have been impossible.
3. The action taken by Great Britain did not conform to the usages of
friendship in such cases. Mr. Seward has said concerning this matter:
“It will be found, we think, that all nations which have desired to
practice justice and friendship towards a state temporarily disturbed
by insurrection have foreborne from conceding belligerent privileges
to the insurgents in anticipation of their concession by the disturbed
state itself. A nation which departs from this duty always practically
commits itself as an ally to the insurgents.”[5] It was not long after
the neutrality proclamation had been issued until the insurrection
assumed the character of a great civil war, and belligerent rights
were then duly extended to the Confederates by all of the Federal
authorities.
In the beginning it was only a personal war, an effort of the Federal
government to suppress rebellion on the part of individuals. United
States courts have repeatedly held that a state of civil war, that
is, a war between governments, one which entitled the Confederates to
belligerent recognition, did not exist until after President Lincoln’s
proclamation to that effect issued August 16, 1861, in pursuance of the
act of congress of July 13, 1861. Belligerent recognition afterward
extended by foreign powers would have been entirely in accordance with
the principles of strict fairness and neutrality.[6]
4. The Confederacy was composed of states which had withdrawn from
the Union in so far as they were able to do so. This had been done by
an unconstitutional act known as secession--one whose validity was
never at any time admitted by the people of the United States. Their
foundation for a government was not solid enough to command any degree
of respect or confidence from foreign powers, and therefore at that
time not worthy even of recognition as belligerents.
The principle of secession without restraint or opposition of any kind
had been established by them when they withdrew from the Federal Union.
Their own organization was not a union but a confederation with each
state acting in its own “sovereign and independent capacity.”[7] With
a government based upon a confederation of states each of which had
the privilege of seceding at pleasure, what assurance could be given
that treaty obligations would be met, or that debts contracted would be
paid, or that any sort of act guaranteed by the common authority would
be executed in good faith? Could it have been motives friendly to the
United States which induced England to extend belligerent recognition
to such a government at that time?
5. It was very well understood in England that the Confederates had no
navy worthy of the name, and that their facilities for building ships
and manufacturing munitions of war in their own country were very
limited. It was doubtless with a view of supplying the Confederates
with these things that the neutrality proclamation was issued so
early. This is evident from a speech made by Lord Chelmsford in the
British parliament in which he said: “If, he might add, the Southern
Confederacy had not been recognized by us as a belligerent power, he
agreed with his noble and learned friend (Brougham) that any Englishman
aiding them by fitting out a privateer against the Federal government
would be guilty of piracy.”[8]
6. The neutrality proclamation created the condition of belligerency on
the part of the Confederates instead of acknowledging an existing fact.
Mr. Adams said concerning this matter: “The British government took
the initiative and decided practically that it was a struggle of two
sides. And furthermore it pronounced the insurgents to be a belligerent
state before they had ever shown their capacity to maintain any kind
of warfare whatever except within their own harbors, and under every
possible advantage. It considered them a marine power before they had
ever exhibited a single privateer upon the ocean. Not a single armed
vessel had yet been issued from any port under the control of these
people. They were not a navigating people. They had made no prizes, so
far as I knew, excepting such as they had caught by surprises. Even now
I could not learn that they had fitted out anything more than a few old
steamboats utterly unable to make any cruise on the ocean, and scarcely
strong enough to bear a cannon of any caliber.”[9]
As has already been stated any organized form of society may be
recognized when it has advanced far enough to defend itself against the
assaults of enemies, and has exhibited sufficient capacity to maintain
binding relations with other powers. But the case is entirely different
when a measure of recognition brings about a result which is due to
such recognition only.
Mr. Hamilton Fish, President Grant’s secretary of state, has well
said of this matter: “The assumed belligerency of the insurgents
was a fiction--a war on paper only, not in the field--like a paper
blockade, the anticipation of supposed belligerency to come, but which
might never have come, if not thus anticipated and encouraged by her
majesty’s government.”[10]
Many attempts have been made to defend the course of the British
government in this matter. A singularly fair-minded writer in his
treatment of other subjects says: “If there was no _bellum_ going on
the commerce of the world could not be expected to recognize President
Lincoln’s blockade of Charleston and Savannah and New Orleans.
International law on the subject is quite clear. A state can not
blockade its own ports. It can indeed order a closure of its own ports.
But a closure of the ports would not have been so effective for the
purposes of the federal government as a blockade. A closure would have
been a matter of municipal law only. An offender against the ordinance
of closure could be only dealt with lawfully in American waters; an
offender against the decree of blockade could be pursued into the open
sea.”[11] Lord Stanley once said: “Her majesty’s government had but two
courses open to them on receiving the intelligence of the president’s
proclamation, namely, either that of acknowledging the blockade and
proclaiming the neutrality of her majesty, or that of refusing to
acknowledge the blockade, and insisting upon the right of her majesty’s
subjects to trade with the ports of the South where the government of
the United States could exercise no fiscal control at that time.”
The ablest, perhaps, of English writers upon international law has said
in defense of the course of his government: “In many of the southern
ports there was a large amount of British property; the cargoes in the
Mississippi alone at the end of May were computed to be worth a million
sterling, and the greater part of these had been shipped for Liverpool.
A blockade had been proclaimed extending over a coast line of some
three thousand miles. Letters of marque had been publicly offered, an
invitation very tempting to the adventurous and reckless men who are
always to be found in every maritime nation. Both the government of
the United States and the _de facto_ government of the confederacy had
assumed and were actually exercising on the high seas the rights of
war; and the neutral who resists the enforcement of those rights does
so under the penalty of capture. Branches of trade perfectly lawful
before might now be treated as unlawful, and punished by seizure and
confiscation. This was the state of facts existing during the first
week of May so far as they were known to the English public; and on
these facts the government was called upon both by the mercantile
community and by some of the warmest partisans of the northern cause to
define its position, to recognize or repudiate the blockade, to accept
or reject the character of a neutral power, and to publish its decision
as widely and as speedily as possible.”[12]
The foregoing arguments may be summed up in two propositions, viz.:
that President Lincoln’s proclamation of blockade constituted a prior
recognition of the existence of civil war in the United States, and
consequent belligerency on the part of the South, and that it was
necessary for the British government to do something to protect its
citizens and their interests against losses in or near the seat of war.
In answer to the latter proposition it may be said that it was not at
all necessary for British subjects to be in any of the places of danger
or to remain there, and if they persisted in doing so, they and their
interests had as much protection as did the citizens of the United
States who were similarly situated, and that they certainly did not
require any more.
Was Confederate belligerency recognized by President Lincoln’s
proclamation declaring a blockade of the southern ports?
At the time of her majesty’s neutrality proclamation, May 13, 1861,
whatever of war that may have existed was not a war of governments,
but only of individuals owing allegiance to the federal government. If
the authority of the United States was for the time being suspended
in some of the states, those states were still component parts of
the union. The disturbance was legally and officially held by all of
the federal authorities civil as well as military, to be strictly
local in character, and as such the government at Washington had an
undoubted right to close the ports within the states in insurrection
by a blockade, and to forbid all intercourse between strangers and
the people of the blockaded cities. The federal authorities also had
the right to use the armed and naval forces of the United States to
enforce a blockade after that course had been determined upon. The
form of closure best adapted to the ends in view was a blockade which
was legally declared and executed as a means for subduing a local
insurrection, and, until such local trouble actually developed into a
state of civil war, the mere fact that certain ports were blockaded
did not confer any belligerent rights whatever upon the insurgents.
If a mere expedient be adopted by the federal government as a remedy
for local insurrection, it does not follow as a consequence that the
insurgents are invested with belligerent rights which foreign nations
must immediately recognize.
The position that a nation can not blockade its own ports, but can
only order a closure of them when they are held by a hostile force,
can not be defended, although Mr. Justin McCarthy holds the contrary
view of the matter. If the right of blockade be denied under such
circumstances, the right of the government to the port is denied; but
if the government have no right, then the port becomes free, and would
remain so unless it be destroyed by the government that originally held
and yet claimed it, because a mere decree of closure without a blockade
superadded could not avail anything against a foreign nation that might
choose to confer belligerent rights upon the insurgents.
As an example of this, an illustrative case may be cited. During
a period of five years succeeding the year 1831, Russia blockaded
her own ports on the eastern shore of the Black sea because they
were in the possession of Circassian rebels. This blockade was
recognized by England without conferring belligerent rights on the
Circassians. English claims for losses occasioned by this blockade were
surrendered.[13]
In this instance, if the United States chose the blockade as the best
form of remedy for the insurrection, and, if the rights and interests
of foreigners were threatened thereby, it became the duty of the
federal authorities to extend to all such aliens the fullest measure of
protection, and to see that their rights were in all cases inviolably
respected.
If these views of the case be correct, there can be no defense whatever
for the action of the British government with regard to the neutrality
proclamation. In the opinion of every unprejudiced mind, it must ever
be classed with the long catalogue of unjust acts and international
wrongs for which England has been noted in her relations with weaker
nations or with stronger countries in distress.
AUTHORITIES AND REFERENCES.
1. American Annual Cyclopedia, 1861.
2. Bemis, George: Pamphlet, “Hasty Recognition.”
3. Blaine, J. G.: Twenty Years of Congress.
4. Bernard, Montague: The Neutrality of Great Britain During the
American Civil War.
5. British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. XXVI.
6. Constitution of the Confederate states.
7. Claims against Great Britain, Vol. IV. Public Document, 1st
Session 41st Congress.
8. Diplomatic correspondence with Great Britain, 1861, 1867 and 1869.
9. De Gasparin, Agénor: L’Amérique devant l’Europe.
10. Hall, W. E.: International Law.
11. Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates.
12. McCarthy, Justin: History of Our Own Times.
13. North American Review, January, 1862.
14. Senate Ex. Doc.: 2d Session 37th Congress, Vol. I.
15. Sumner, Charles: The Works of, Vol. VII.
16. Text of the Queen’s Neutrality Proclamation. See British Blue
Book containing official documents for 1861.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Mr. Dallas to Mr. Seward, May 2, 1861.
[2] Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, Vol. CLXII, p. 1566.
[3] The History of Our Own Times, Vol. II, p. 193.
[4] American Annual Cyclopedia for 1861, pp. 150 and 151.
[5] Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams, Jan. 12, 1867.
[6] See decisions of U. S. circuit court, state of Maryland, 6 Am. Law
Reg., N. S., 732; U. S. dist. court eastern dist. of Missouri, 3 Am.
Law Reg., N. S., 735; U. S. supreme court, 10 Wallace, 158.
[7] See Preamble of the Constitution of the Confederate States.
[8] Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, Vol. CLXII, p. 2084.
[9] Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward, report of statements made to Lord Russell,
May 21, 1861.
[10] Mr. Fish to Mr. Motley, September 25, 1869.
[11] Justin McCarthy, History of Our Own Times, Vol. II, p. 193.
[12] Montague Bernard’s Neutrality of Great Britain During the American
War, pp. 128-130.
[13] See British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. XXVI, p. 2.
CHAPTER V.
ENGLISH NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE INSURGENTS.
In April, 1856, ambassadors from all of the principal European
countries met at Paris and adopted as articles of maritime law the
following propositions:
“1. Privateering is and remains abolished.
“2. The neutral flag covers enemy’s goods with the exception of
contraband of war.
“3. Neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not
liable to capture under the enemy’s flag.
“4. Blockades in order to be binding must be effective, that is to say,
maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the coast
of the enemy.”
By its own terms the declaration of Paris, as these principles were
afterward known, was not to bind any country which did not accede to
its terms. The fourth point was already a well-settled principle of
international law. The third was looked upon as having almost the force
of a maxim of law. The proposition that a neutral flag protects goods
of an enemy save contraband of war was one over which there had been
much controversy. The employment of privateers had always been regarded
as a right which every nation possessed. The United States had never
become a party to this declaration, judging it not to be expedient to
relinquish the right of using privateers. To do this would have placed
the United States at a great disadvantage in a contest with a nation
like England which possessed a greatly superior navy. Privateers are a
most effective weapon against the commerce of a powerful enemy.
A large navy might easily hold the small navy of an enemy in check,
destroy his commerce, and blockade his ports, all at the same time. A
small navy aided by many privateers to prey on the commerce of an enemy
can easily engage the attention of a very large navy.
The United States had offered to accept the declaration of Paris on
condition that it be so amended as to exempt all private property
from capture at sea by the public armed ships of an enemy, as well as
by privateers. This proposition was refused. If it had been accepted
future naval operations would have been limited strictly to the public
armed ships of belligerents.[1]
Sir Henry Sumner Maine, a noted English authority on international
law, after considering the amount of injury that might be done to his
country in case her food supply should be cut off in time of war by
the numerous and active privateers of an enemy, says: “It seems, then,
that the proposal of the American government to give up privateers, on
condition of exempting all private property from capture, might well
be made by some very strong friend of Great Britain. If universally
adopted, it would save our food, and it would save the commodities
which are the price of our food, from their most formidable enemies,
and would disarm the most formidable class of those enemies.”[2]
Only five days after the neutrality proclamation was issued, Lord
Russell addressed a communication to Lord Lyons at Washington asking
the latter to take such steps as he might deem necessary in order to
secure the assent of the Confederate government to the last three
articles of the declaration of Paris.
On July 5, 1861, Lord Lyons addressed a communication to Robert
Bunch, the British consul at Charleston, in which he said: “The
course of events having invested the states assuming the title of the
Confederate States of America with the character of belligerents, it
has become necessary for her majesty’s government to obtain from the
existing government in those states securities concerning the proper
treatment of neutrals. I am authorized by Lord John Russell to confide
the negotiation of this matter to you and I have great satisfaction
in doing so. In order to make you acquainted with the views of her
majesty’s government, I transmit to you a duplicate of a dispatch to
me in which they are fully stated. It is essential, under present
circumstances, that you should act with great caution, in order to
avoid raising the question of the recognition of the new confederacy by
Great Britain. On this account I think it inadvisable that you should
go to Richmond or place yourself in direct communication with the
central authority which is established there.
“The most convenient course will probably be for you to take advantage
of the intercourse which you naturally hold with Mr. Pickens, the
governor of the state of South Carolina. I can not doubt that if you
explain verbally to Mr. Pickens the views of her majesty’s government,
he will have no difficulty in inducing the government at Richmond to
recognize, by an official act, the rights secured to neutrals by the
second and third articles of the declaration of Paris, and to admit its
own responsibility for the acts of privateers sailing under its letters
of marque.”
Consul Bunch was unable to see Governor Pickens, who was at that time
in the interior of the state looking after his plantation. Mr. Bunch,
however, immediately secured the services of an agent in the person
of a Mr. Trescot who was very well known to Lord Lyons. Mr. Trescot
went at once to Richmond and laid the matter before Jefferson Davis,
president of the Confederate States. Mr. Davis expressed regret that
the application had not been made in a more formal manner, but he at
once called a cabinet meeting for consideration of the matter, after
which it was immediately submitted to the Confederate congress. Without
delay that body passed the following resolutions:
“_Resolved_, By the congress of the Confederate States of America:
“1st. That we maintain the right of privateering as it has been long
established by the practice, and recognized by the law of nations.
“2d. That the neutral flag covers enemy’s goods with the exception of
contraband of war.
“3d. That neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are
not liable to capture under the enemy’s flag.
“4th. Blockades in order to be binding must be effective, that is to
say, maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the
coast of the enemy.”
These resolutions were approved August 13, 1861, and returned at
once by Mr. Trescot to Consul Bunch who forwarded a copy of them to
Lord Lyons at Washington. His lordship was greatly pleased at Mr.
Bunch’s success in this undertaking, and so expressed himself in a
communication enclosing a copy of the resolutions and dispatch of the
consul to Lord John Russell.
When this matter was brought to the attention of Mr. Seward, he at once
demanded the removal of Mr. Bunch. This was peremptorily refused by
Lord Russell who replied that “Mr. Bunch was instructed” to conduct the
negotiation with the Confederate States, and that “Mr. Bunch therefore,
in what he has done in this matter, has acted in obedience to the
instructions of his government, who accept the responsibility of his
proceedings so far as they are known to the foreign department, and who
can not remove him from his office for having obeyed instructions.”
Mr. Bunch’s _exequatur_ was then formally revoked by President Lincoln.
Mr. Bunch’s act was a violation of a federal statute which made it an
offense for any person not appointed or authorized by the president,
to advise or assist in any political correspondence with a foreign
government for the purpose of influencing its measures in relation to
the United States.[3]
It has been affirmed by an able British writer that this was an
“unofficial application made to the Confederate States” since the
“channel of communication was a private person.”[4] This position
is not tenable, because every communication was strictly official
in character, and the mere means of conveying them could not change
the character of the communications themselves. The fact that the
British government assumed the responsibility for the act is of itself
sufficient to establish its official character. The whole proceeding
was an official invitation to the Confederacy to exercise those powers
which belong only to a sovereign state, to do that which only an
independent government can do, namely, to accept and become a party to
an international agreement that differed in no sense from a treaty.
While this negotiation was being conducted with the Confederate
government, another of similar purport was in progress with the United
States government, which was not only willing but anxious to accept
the declaration of Paris as a whole. At this point in the proceedings
the British government refused to permit the United States to accept
the Paris declaration pure and simple, except with the distinct
understanding that England was not to interfere in any way whatever
with privateering on the part of the Confederate States. What was
equivalent to a treaty had been concluded between England and the
Confederates, by which the latter were to be allowed the use of
privateers.
In explanation of this matter Mr. Blaine says: “The right of
privateering was not left untouched except with deep design. By
securing the assent of the Confederacy to the other three articles of
the Paris convention, safety was assured to British and French cargoes
under the American flag, while every American cargo was at risk
unless protected by a foreign flag--generally the flag of England. It
would have been impossible to invent a process more gainful to British
commerce, and more harmful to American commerce.”[5]
AUTHORITIES AND REFERENCES.
1. Bernard, Montague: The Neutrality of Great Britain During the
American Civil War.
2. Blaine, James G.: Twenty Years of Congress.
3. Diplomatic correspondence with Great Britain, 1861.
4. Maine, Sir Henry Sumner: International Law.
5. Senate Ex. Documents: 2d Session 37th Congress, Vol. I, and 3d
Session 37th Congress, Vol. I.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] See discussion by Hon. W. L. Marcy, U. S. secretary of state, Ex.
Doc., 3d Session 24th Cong., Vol. I, part I, pp. 33-34.
[2] Maine’s International Law, pp. 121-122.
[3] See Mr. Seward’s letter to Mr. Adams, October 25, 1861.
[4] Bernard’s Neutrality of Great Britain, p. 191.
[5] Twenty Years of Congress, Vol. I, p. 579.
CHAPTER VI.
MR. SEWARD’S CIRCULAR TO THE GOVERNORS OF THE NORTHERN STATES.
During the first half year of the American civil war, the policy of
the English government toward that of the United States appeared to be
one of studied unfriendliness. The numerous semi-hostile acts which
have already been narrated followed each other in rapid succession. In
the summer of 1861 troops were continually pushed into Canada by the
British government. When asked for an explanation Lord John Russell
said that he regarded it as necessary “in the present disturbed
condition of things in the United States,” as he did not know but
that the Americans “might do something.”[1] In September of that year
twenty-five thousand fresh troops were ordered to be sent to Canada for
distribution along the southern frontier of that province. At the North
these continued acts of unfriendliness seemed to indicate a strong
desire for recognition of the Confederacy and early intervention in
American affairs by the British government. To the friends of the Union
this was a source of great fear and uneasiness; to the disloyal it was
the cause of much hope; to the Confederates it was an inspiration to
greater efforts and renewed enthusiasm for their slave republic.
The popular anxiety of the loyal people concerning this matter was also
shared in no small degree by the president and the various members of
his cabinet. After due consideration of the matter it was decided to
do something to provide against foreign interference. Accordingly a
circular was addressed by Mr. Seward to each of the governors of the
loyal states bordering on the ocean or the great lakes. The circular
was as follows:
“DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
“WASHINGTON, Oct. 14, 1861.
“_To His Excellency, the Governor, etc._:
“SIR--The present insurrection had not even revealed itself in arms
when disloyal citizens hastened to foreign countries to invoke their
intervention for the overthrow of the government and the destruction
of the Federal Union. These agents are known to have made their
appeals to some of the more important states without success. It
is not likely, however, that they will remain content with such
refusals. Indeed it is understood that they are industriously
endeavoring to accomplish their disloyal purposes by degrees and by
indirection. Taking advantage of the embarrassments of agriculture,
manufactures and commerce in foreign countries, resulting from the
insurrection they have inaugurated at home, they seek to involve our
common country in controversies with states with which every public
interest and every interest of mankind require that it shall remain
in relations of peace, amity and friendship. I am able to state for
your satisfaction that the prospect for any such disturbance is now
less serious than it has been at any previous period during the
course of the insurrection. It is, nevertheless, necessary now, as it
has hitherto been, to take every precaution that is possible to avoid
the evils of foreign war, to be superinduced upon those of civil
commotion which we are endeavoring to cure.
“One of the most obvious of such precautions is that our ports
and harbors on the seas and lakes should be put in a condition of
complete defense, for any nation may be said to voluntarily incur
danger in tempestuous seasons when it fails to show that it has
sheltered itself on every side from which the storm might possibly
come.
“The measures which the executive can adopt in the emergency are such
only as congress has sanctioned, and for which it has provided.
“The president is putting forth the most diligent efforts to execute
those measures, and we have the great satisfaction of seeing that
those efforts are seconded by the favor, aid, and support of a loyal,
patriotic and self-sacrificing people, who are rapidly bringing
the military and naval force of the United States into the highest
state of efficiency. But congress was chiefly absorbed, during
its extra session, with those measures, and did not provide as
amply as could be wished for the fortification of our sea and lake
coasts. In previous wars the loyal states have applied themselves,
by independent and separate activity, to the support and aid of
the Federal government in its arduous responsibilities. The same
disposition has been manifested in a degree eminently honorable by
all the loyal states during the present insurrection.
“In view of this fact, and relying upon the increase and continuance
of the same disposition on the part of the loyal states, the
president has directed me to invite your consideration to the subject
of the improvement and perfection of the defenses of the state over
which you preside, and to ask you to submit the subject to the
consideration of the legislature when it shall have assembled. Such
proceedings by the state would require only a temporary use of its
means.
“The expenditures ought to be made the subject of conference with
the Federal government. Being thus made, with the concurrence of the
government, for general defense, there is every reason to believe
that congress would sanction what the states should do and would
provide for its reimbursement.
“Should these suggestions be accepted, the president will direct
the proper agents of the Federal government to confer with you, and
to superintend, direct and conduct the prosecution of the system of
defense of your state. I have the honor to be, sir,
“Your obedient servant,
“W. H. SEWARD.”
This circular at once caused great comment both in Canada and England.
The Canadian press declared that fortifications along the northern
frontier of the United States were a menace to their dominions, and
would be immediately equaled by defenses which they proposed to erect
just opposite. The press and authorities of England pretended to regard
it as a menace and pronounced it “ill-timed,” and “a foolish confession
of fear.” The London Post was the ministerial organ at that time. The
following extracts from an editorial in that journal probably best
represent the current English view of the circular. It was entitled,
“Is Mr. Seward seeking a quarrel?” Comments were made as follows: “Mr.
Seward, the secretary of state, is a distinguished disciple of the
American school, and during the present unhappy contest he has had
abundant opportunity of writing those long-winded and pretentious state
papers which appear to console the American people for the absence of
liberty and the ordinary administration of the law. Three documents
have recently emanated from the pen of this gentleman, in all of which
English interests are deeply concerned.” The documents were then
enumerated, and among them was “the circular addressed to the governors
of the northern states recommending the immediate construction of coast
and lake defenses extending over the frontiers several thousand miles
in length.”
It was said of the circular that “it may fairly be supposed to be
a revival of the Monroe doctrine, which, originally was a protest
against the European Holy Alliance of some forty years back, has,
notwithstanding the bluster of the United States government on various
occasions, never received the countenance or sanction of any foreign
country. In fact the doctrine was founded upon an erroneous assumption,
because it ignored the authority of Great Britain, which, in right of
its American provinces, has as much to do with the balance of power
upon the North American continent as the United States themselves. As
it is understood that the Federal government has been invited to take
part in the joint expedition which England, France and Spain are about
to dispatch to Mexico, it scarcely can be believed that Mr. Seward has
answered this invitation by a circular, the object of which is to place
the whole coast of the republic in a state of defense against some
threatened invasion.
“Does Mr. Seward imagine that the Canadians are about to ally
themselves with the South, or that any foreign power is disposed to
take advantage of the present condition of American affairs to threaten
or insult the United States government? We doubt very much whether
the conventions which make the great lakes neutral, and prohibit the
employment of armed vessels in their waters, would justify either
England or the United States in constructing fortresses along their
coasts, which, in reality, could only be constructed as standing
menaces, because they could not answer the end desired, that of
protecting a frontier which, not at a hundred, but at a thousand points
must always be accessible to an enemy. It suits Mr. Seward’s present
purpose to arouse the American mind with one of those periodical
and offensive exhibitions toward England which the statesmen of the
republic have on former occasions found useful. As no foreign power,
in all probability, has the slightest desire to hold permanently a
foot of Mexican soil or to invade the Unites States, either from
the lakes or the Atlantic, Mr. Seward’s circular may be regarded,
if successful, as another illustration of the maxim, ‘_Populus vult
decipi, decipiatur_.’[2]”[3]
English journals found nothing to criticise in the conduct of their
own government as long as troops were being pushed into Canada to
menace the United States. When the Federal government decided to resent
this action in some degree by preparing for a foreign invasion, the
British press immediately gave vent to its hatred for the northern
cause and abused Mr. Seward for what it termed an act of menace and an
exhibition of inconsistency.
It will be noticed that Mr. Seward’s circular was issued within three
days after the escape from Charleston of Messrs. Mason and Slidell,
the Confederate commissioners extraordinary to England and France. The
objects of their mission had been well understood at Washington for
some time, and this probably had something to do with the issuing of
the circular.
The Federal government at all times pursued a policy of the most
determined and unyielding opposition to any foreign intervention in
behalf of the insurgents, and it may safely be presumed that this firm
and confident course exerted a much more powerful influence abroad than
even the English government would care to admit.
AUTHORITIES AND REFERENCES.
1. Diplomatic correspondence with Great Britain, 1861.
2. London Post, November 6, 1861.
3. Senate Ex. Doc.: 2d Session 37th Congress, Vol. I.
4. Text of the circular itself. See Indianapolis Sentinel and other
northern newspapers of October 19, 1861.
5. Victor, O. J.: History of the Southern Rebellion.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Adams to Seward, June 14, 1861.
[2] The people like to be deceived, let them be deceived.
[3] The London Morning Post, November 6, 1861.
CHAPTER VII.
THE FIRST EFFORTS OF THE CONFEDERATES FOR RECOGNITION ABROAD.
From the very moment when secession began to be contemplated by the
southern leaders, it was evident that they confidently expected foreign
aid, both moral and material, in their efforts to establish their
independence. A comparatively large and mutually profitable commerce
had been carried on for many years between the South and the nations
of western Europe. An exaggerated idea of the importance of this
trade had impressed itself upon the minds of the secession leaders.
They evidently believed that England would aid them in a war for
independence rather than sustain the loss and inconvenience which would
be caused by a destruction of the cotton trade.
While secession was under consideration, Mr. Judah P. Benjamin, United
States senator from Louisiana and afterward Confederate secretary of
state, addressed a letter to the British consul at New York in which
very strong bids were made for English aid and sympathy. Mr. Benjamin
gave it as his opinion that, under certain conditions, the southern
states might be induced to secede and resume their former allegiance
to the British crown as a dependent province.[1]
South Carolina was the first state to summon a secession convention,
and in the discussion which took place while that body was in session,
one of the delegates said: “We have it on high authority that the
representative of one of the imperial powers of Europe, in view of this
prospective separation from the Union, has made propositions in advance
for the establishment of such relations between it and the government
about to be established in this state as will insure to that power such
a supply of cotton for the future as an increasing demand for that
article will require.”[2]
After the secession of Georgia, Mr. Iverson, a United States senator
from that state, said in his farewell speech to the senate: “You may
have ships of war and we may have none. You may blockade our ports and
lock up our commerce. We can live, if need be, without commerce. But
when you shut out our cotton from the looms of Europe, we shall see
whether other nations will not have something to say and something to
do on that subject. Cotton is king, and it will find means to raise
your blockade and disperse your ships.”[3]
Senator John Slidell, of Louisiana, after the secession of his state,
made a speech in the senate before his withdrawal, in which he said:
“How long, think you, will the great powers of Europe permit you to
impede their free intercourse with their best customers for their
various fabrics and to stop the supplies of the great staple which is
the most important basis of their manufacturing industry, by a mere
paper blockade?”[4]
One of the first things done by the Confederate congress after its
organization at Montgomery in February, 1861, was to adopt resolutions
that steps be immediately taken to send agents abroad for the purpose
of presenting the cause of the new Confederacy to the governments of
Europe. Very soon, therefore, after Jefferson Davis was installed in
office, he appointed as foreign agents Messrs. William L. Yancey, of
Alabama; Dudley Mann, of Virginia; P. A. Rost, of Louisiana, and T.
Butler King, of Georgia. Early in March these gentlemen proceeded to
their destination by way of New Orleans and Havana. They were empowered
to secure the recognition of Confederate independence by European
nations and to conclude treaties of amity and commerce with them.
Yancey and Mann were to operate chiefly in England; Rost and King in
France, although other countries were to be visited.
None of these men appear to have possessed any ability as diplomatists.
Mr. Yancey was the leading spirit among them. He was a brilliant
and polished speaker, ready and dexterous in controversy, sarcastic
beyond expression, and extremely unscrupulous. He wrote a letter for
publication in June, 1859, in which he declared that the will of
the slave-holding states themselves and not the Federal government
should determine whether the African slave trade should be carried
on or not. He also added that the matter ought to be submitted to
that kind of a tribunal only and by its decision alone should the
southern people abide. He was one of the first men in the South to
counsel secession. At a speech made early in January, 1860, he said:
“But in the presidential contest a black Republican may be elected.
If this dire event should happen, in my opinion, the only hope for
safety for the South is a withdrawal from the Union before he shall
be inaugurated--before the sword and the treasury of the Federal
government shall be placed in the keeping of that party.” Mr. Mann was
only a dull statistician whose ability was very limited. Mr. King was
a typical southern planter, the owner of a large number of slaves. Mr.
Rost was a French adventurer who had drifted to Louisiana in early
life, married a wealthy woman, studied law and was elected to a place
on the bench of the supreme court of his state. All of these men had
been noted for craft and duplicity in the management of affairs in
their own limited spheres at home, but none of them possessed any of
the requisites of a real diplomat. They failed to obtain any official
recognition either for themselves or for their government.
Early in May, 1861, Mr. Dallas, the American minister at London, said
in a communication to Mr. Seward: “He (Lord Russell) told me that the
three representatives of the Southern Confederacy were here, that he
had not seen them, but was not unwilling to do so unofficially.”[5]
Two days later his lordship received Messrs. Yancey, Rost and Mann in
an unofficial way and listened to their appeal for recognition. They
entered into an exhaustive discussion of the causes which led the
South to secede and presented the advantages for commerce which a
recognition of their independence would secure to England. They called
special attention to the fact that the Federal government levied a
high tariff on all imports, while the constitution of the Confederate
States entirely prohibited all protective duties. They said that about
three-fourths of the annual imports from England were bought by the
South. They also emphasized the fact that their constitution prohibited
the African slave trade.
Lord Russell replied that he did not then deem it expedient to
consider the question of recognition, that the Confederacy must first
demonstrate its ability to maintain its position as an independent
state, and that it must be shown in what manner relations were to be
maintained with foreign nations.
On August 14, 1861, the same commissioners addressed a long
communication to Lord Russell, in which extended reasons were given
for the immediate recognition of the Confederacy by her majesty’s
government. To this communication his lordship returned a reply that
was unsatisfactory to the Confederate agents.
When Mr. Seward learned, through Mr. Dallas’s communication, of Lord
Russell’s proposed unofficial reception of the commissioners, he took
very strong grounds against it. In a letter to Mr. Adams, who had in
the meantime succeeded Mr. Dallas as minister to England, Mr. Seward
said: “The president regrets that Mr. Dallas did not protest against
the proposed unofficial intercourse between the British government and
the missionaries of the insurgents. Intercourse of any kind with the
so-called commissioners is liable to be construed as a recognition of
the authority which appointed them. Such intercourse would be none
the less hurtful to us for being called unofficial, and it might be
even more injurious, because we should have no means of knowing what
points might be resolved by it. Moreover, unofficial intercourse is
useless and meaningless, if it is not expected to ripen into official
intercourse, and direct recognition. It is left doubtful here whether
the proposed unofficial intercourse has as yet actually begun. Your
antecedent instructions are deemed explicit enough, and it is hoped
that you have not misunderstood them. You will in any event desist from
all intercourse whatever, unofficial as well as official, with the
British government so long as it shall continue intercourse of either
kind with the domestic enemies of this country. When intercourse shall
have been arrested for this cause, you will communicate with this
department and receive further instructions.”[6]
In response to a complimentary toast offered at a dinner of the
Fishmonger’s Society in London early in November, 1861, Mr. Yancey,
acting as spokesman for the Confederate agents, said: “In defense of
their liberties and sovereign independence, the Confederate States and
people are united and resolute. They are invaded by a power numbering
twenty millions, yet for eight months has the Confederate government
successfully resisted, aye, repelled invasion along a military frontier
of a thousand miles. Though cut off by blockade from all foreign trade,
their internal resources have been adequate to the equipment and
maintenance in the field of an army of over 250,000 troops. Can all
this be and yet these six millions of whites be divided? The idea is
preposterous.
“They can maintain their independence intact by their own strength. As
to their recognition by the powers of the world, that of course they
desire. They are a people, a nation, exhibiting elements of power which
few states of the world possess. But they have no reason to complain,
nor do they feel aggrieved because these great powers see fit to
defer their formal recognition and reception into the great family of
nations. However they may differ from them as to the period when their
recognition shall take place, they fully understand that such action is
purely a question to be determined by those countries each for itself
and with reference to its own interests and views of public policy.”[7]
Strenuous efforts were made to secure recognition in other European
countries, especially in France. Mr. King’s operations were
confined chiefly to that country. In June, 1861, he addressed a
long communication to the French minister of commerce in which the
commercial claims of the Confederacy to direct relations with Europe
were set forth. It was in the form of a pamphlet printed in French and
addressed to the minister of commerce. The real intent, however, was
to prepare a document for universal circulation in Europe in order to
gain friendship and sympathy for the southern cause, especially among
the wealthier classes of manufacturers and merchants. Neither sound
logic nor honest argument were exhibited in this address. Facts and
figures were woven together in such a way as to appear like a complete
argument of justification, and it doubtless made many friends for the
South among those whose information was not broad enough to enable
them to see its fallacies and ingenious falsehoods. Mr. King practiced
whatever of duplicity he thought would be of advantage to himself and
his cause. Thus, he acted while in Europe as a commissioner from the
state of Georgia, yet it has been proved conclusively from captured
correspondence of his that he was a sort of general assistant to the
whole band of Confederate agents abroad.
Concerning the labors of these representatives, Jefferson Davis has
said: “Our efforts for the recognition of the Confederate States by the
European powers, in 1861, served to make us better known abroad, to
awaken a kindly feeling in our favor, and cause a respectful regard for
the effort we were making to maintain the independence of the states
which Great Britain had recognized, and her people knew to be our
birthright.”[8]
It was well, perhaps, for the peace of Europe in 1861, and certainly
most fortunate for the interests of the northern states, that the
sophistries of the southerners did not induce any European nation
to recognize the independence of the Confederate States, and open a
direct communication with them. This would have been an interference in
American domestic affairs which the Federal government would not have
tolerated even though it had led to a war between the United States
and the recognizing power. Mr. Seward meant as much when he said that
if England determined to recognize, she might as well prepare to enter
into an alliance with the insurgents. Indeed, it is highly probable
that one of the chief motives which induced the Confederate government
to seek recognition abroad with such persistance and determination was
a hope that the United States would become involved in a foreign war as
a consequence. It was doubtless thought that such a result would enable
them to form a foreign alliance--a measure which would have greatly
improved their prospects for independence.
AUTHORITIES AND REFERENCES.
1. American Annual Cyclopedia, 1861.
2. Congressional Globe: Part I, 2d Session 36th Congress.
3. Davis, Jefferson: The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government.
4. Diplomatic Correspondence with Great Britain, 1861.
5. Draper, J. W.: History of the American Civil War.
6. Foote’s War of the Rebellion.
7. London Globe, Nov. 12, 1861.
8. Lossing, B. J.: The Civil War in America.
9. McPherson, Edward: Political History of the Rebellion.
10. Senate Ex. Doc.: 2d Session 37th Congress, Vol. I.
11. Victor, O. J.: History of the Southern Rebellion.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] See Life of Thurlow Weed, Vol. II, pp. 313-314.
[2] Draper’s Civil War in America, Vol. II, p. 501.
[3] Congressional Globe, Jan. 28, 1861.
[4] Congressional Globe, Feb. 4, 1861.
[5] Mr. Dallas to Mr. Seward, May 2, 1861.
[6] Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams, May 21, 1861.
[7] London Globe, Nov. 12, 1861.
[8] Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Vol. I, p. 469.
CHAPTER VIII.
JAMES MURRAY MASON AND JOHN SLIDELL--THE NATURE AND MERITS OF THEIR
MISSION.
The first agents of the South had spent seven months in Europe without
accomplishing anything. It became painfully evident to the Confederacy
that those who were then representing its interests abroad would
never be able to secure for it the much desired recognition of its
independence. Although disappointed at this failure, Mr. Davis was
not disheartened, but determined to try the effect of a second and
much more formal mission, in which the interests of the Confederate
government would be represented by men of much more ability and force
of character than those who had been sent in the first instance. The
new representatives were to be duly commissioned as “ambassadors” for
the Confederate States. Their proposed work abroad was thought to be
of vital importance to the interests of the Confederacy. After due
consideration of the matter, therefore, Messrs. James Murray Mason,
of Virginia, and John Slidell, of Louisiana, were selected for this
employment and credentials duly furnished them by which the former
was to represent the Confederate States in England, and the latter in
France.
Mr. James M. Mason was a Virginian whose name was historic. His family
had been distinguished in the history of his state from the earliest
colonial times, and Mr. Mason himself was a man of great personal mark,
possessing ability of the highest order. He had represented Virginia
in the United States senate for years prior to the secession of that
state. He had been chairman of the senate committee on foreign affairs
and was the author of the fugitive slave law. Indeed an examination of
his senatorial record shows that he never lost an opportunity to dilate
upon the fugitive slave question. The failure or refusal of citizens
of the free states to apprehend and return to their masters runaway
slaves that were constantly escaping from Virginia was to Mr. Mason a
grievance of unexampled proportions. On the first day that congress
convened again after the John Brown raid, Senator Mason introduced a
resolution of inquiry into the facts attending the invasion and seizure
of Harper’s Ferry, Virginia: “whether such invasion and seizure was
made under color of any organization intended to subvert the government
of any of the states of the Union; what was the character and extent of
such organization; and whether any citizens of the United States not
present were implicated therein or accessory thereto by contributions
of money, arms, munitions or otherwise; what was the character and
extent of the military equipment in the hands or under the control of
said armed band and where and how and when the same was obtained and
transported to the place so invaded.”[1] This resolution was evidently
intended to fix the responsibility for the John Brown raid where it
did not belong, viz., upon the Republican party in the northern states.
Mr. Mason was one of the first to advocate the secession of Virginia.
A powerful minority in that state opposed the movement, and it was
not without considerable opposition that the secessionists triumphed.
The convention called to consider the question of seceding passed an
ordinance withdrawing the state from the Union, provided the measure
be approved by the people of Virginia at a special election called
to decide the matter. Some ten days before the election Mr. Mason
published a letter which was widely circulated giving his views with
regard to the act of secession, which, he declared, “withdrew the state
of Virginia from the Union with all the consequences resulting from the
separation,” and nullified “all the constitution and laws of the United
States within its limits.” He thought Virginia could not afford to
reject the secession ordinance at the coming election, and said: “If it
be asked what those shall do who can not in conscience vote to separate
Virginia from the United States, the answer is simple and plain. Honor
and duty alike require that they should not vote on the question, and
if they retain such opinions they must leave the state.”[2] This was
meant to encourage intimidation of the loyal people throughout the
state, and the history of the time shows that such advice was not given
in vain.
Mr. John Slidell, of Louisiana, had also been known in public life
previous to the civil war. A native of New York, he had in early life
become a citizen of Louisiana, where he had married an accomplished
French Creole lady. He entered public life in 1842, being elected to
the house of representatives.
Mr. Slidell represented Louisiana in the United States senate when
his state seceded from the Union. His withdrawal speech was bitter in
the extreme. The following is an extract from it: “We have no idea
that you will even attempt to invade our soil with your armies; but we
acknowledge your superiority on the sea, at present, in some degree
accidental, but in the main, natural and permanent, until we shall
have acquired better ports for our marine. You may, if you will it,
persist in considering us bound to you during your good pleasure;
you may deny the sacred and indefeasible right, we will not say of
secession, but of revolution--aye, of rebellion, if you choose so to
call our action--the right of every people to establish for itself
that form of government which it may, even in its folly, if such you
deem it, consider best calculated to secure its safety and promote its
welfare. You may ignore the principles of our immortal Declaration of
Independence; you may attempt to reduce us to subjection, or you may,
under color of enforcing your laws or collecting your revenue, blockade
our ports. This will be war and we shall meet it with different but
equally efficient weapons. We will not permit the consumption or
introduction of any of your manufactures; every sea will swarm with
our volunteer militia of the ocean, with the striped bunting floating
over their heads, for we do not mean to give up that flag without a
bloody struggle; it is ours as much as yours; and although for a time
more stars may shine on your banner, our children, if not we, will
rally under a constellation more numerous and more resplendent than
yours. You may smile at this as an impotent boast, at least for the
present, if not for the future, but, if we need ships and men for
privateering, we shall be amply supplied from the same sources as
now almost exclusively furnish the means for carrying on, with such
unexampled vigor, the African slave trade--New York and New England.
Your mercantile marine must either sail under foreign flags or rot at
your wharves.”
“You were,” continued Mr. Slidell, “with all the wealth and resources
of this great Confederacy, but a fourth or fifth rate naval power,
with capacities, it is true, for large, and in a just quarrel almost
indefinite expansion. What will you do when not merely emasculated by
the withdrawal of fifteen states, but warred upon by them with active
and inveterate hostility?”[3]
Perhaps enough has been said of these men to convey an adequate
idea of the character and motives of each of them. Both were ultra
secessionists, active, talented and with sufficient ability to do all
that could be done for their cause in Europe.
The object of the mission of Mason and Slidell to Europe was to secure,
if possible, the recognition of the independence of the Confederate
government by the respective states to which they were accredited;
to effect alliances or to conclude treaties of commerce or amity; to
procure the intervention of France and England, if their government
so desired; to neutralize and defeat any diplomatic measures of the
United States in Europe; to serve the financial and military needs of
the insurgent government by procuring foreign loans, securing munitions
of war, granting commissions, and, in short, to aid the Confederacy by
every means in their power.
The United States was most fortunate at this time in having all of her
foreign affairs in the hands of men who possessed more than ordinary
ability as diplomats. Mr. Seward had early anticipated the work of all
Confederate agents abroad and sent to each United States minister,
accredited to any country which he thought would be applied to by
insurgent missionaries, a carefully prepared letter of instructions
containing an outline of the arguments to be used in thwarting the
efforts of the southern representatives. The instructions given to Mr.
Adams were, perhaps, the most careful and extended of any.
Mr. Seward thought the agents of the Confederates would not appeal
to the magnanimity or justice of Great Britain, but rather to her
cupidity and caprice; that they would ask recognition as a measure of
retaliation against the Morrill tariff.
In response he thought it would be well to argue that every state has
a right to regard its own convenience only in framing its revenue
laws; that a recognition of the Confederacy would be equivalent to a
deliberate resolve on the part of her majesty’s government that the
American Union which had so long constituted a single prosperous nation
should be permanently dissolved and forever cease to exist; that the
excuse for so doing would be only a change in the American revenue
laws--a change that in its very nature could be only temporary and
ephemeral because of public sentiment in the United States which in
a brief time would probably demand a change; that as a retaliatory
measure recognition would be out of all proportion to the temporary
disadvantage created by the revenue law; that a magnanimous nation
which desired to retaliate could find other and more friendly remedies
for foreign legislation that was injurious without deliberately seeking
to destroy the offending nation. Mr. Seward thought that England should
not be in haste to assume that the Confederate States would offer
more liberal facilities for trade than the United States would be
disposed to concede; that it might be well to wait and see whether the
best terms of the South would be any more desirable than those which
the North could offer. Attention was also to be called to the fact
that absolute free trade had always existed among the several states
of the Union, which was in effect free trade throughout the largest
habitable part of North America; that during the entire national
period of American history, except brief intervals that did not affect
the result, constantly increasing liberality in commercial relations
with foreign nations had been the policy of the United States; that
these advances had been made necessarily, because with an increasing
liberality the Federal government had, at the same time, owing to
controlling causes, continually augmented its revenues and the whole
country had increased its productions; and finally that it was quite
evident that no different course would be followed in the future. It
was also to be noted that the Confederate States might not be able to
continue for any length of time the proposed commercial liberality
which they proffered as an equivalent for recognition, since such
liberality implied that peace must continuously exist and that trade
relations would not be disturbed. If war rather than peace should
mark the existence of the new government, there would be very strong
temptations to levy an import duty since that would be one of their
chief means of raising much needed revenue. It was further affirmed
that only a limited examination of commercial statistics was sufficient
to show that while the chief American exports to European countries
were staples of the Confederate States, yet a very large proportion
of the fabrics and products from abroad which were consumed in those
states were obtained and must continue to be obtained not from Europe
but from the northern states of America, and that the chief consumption
of European goods imported into the United States took place in the
same northern states; that the great features of that commerce could
not be modified by the action of either the Confederate congress or the
British parliament, since its composite character was due to the great
variety of soils and climates of a continent, as well as the various
institutions, customs and dispositions of the numerous communities
living upon it. Mr. Seward was also of opinion that the Morrill tariff
would not diminish the amount of English goods consumed in the United
States, since the American people were active, energetic, industrious,
inventive and not penurious, and they were engaged in developing a
practically new continent of unlimited natural resources. This in his
opinion caused both individual and public wealth to increase daily,
and with such increase grew the habit of liberal if not profuse
expenditure--results which no revenue legislation could change other
than to vary the character and not the amount and value of foreign
imports.
Mr. Adams was also advised to say that Great Britain was committed to a
policy of industry and peace rather than of ambition and war; that such
a policy had undoubtedly brought the best results to her as a nation;
and that continued success in this career required peace throughout the
civilized world and especially on this continent. “Recognition by her
of the so-called Confederate States,” continued Mr. Seward, “would be
intervention and war in this country. Permanent dismemberment of the
American Union in consequence of that intervention would be perpetual
war--civil war. The new Confederacy which Great Britain would have
aided into existence would, like any other new state, seek to expand
itself northward, westward and southward. What part of the continent or
of the adjacent islands would be expected to remain in peace? President
Lincoln would not for a moment believe that upon consideration of mere
financial gain that government could be induced to lend its aid to a
revolution designed to overthrow the institutions of this country and
involving ultimately the destruction of the liberties of the American
people.”
Another point to be noted was that recognition of the independence of a
new state was the highest possible exercise of sovereign power, because
it might result in establishing the new nation among the powers of
earth--a result often fraught with grave consequences to other nations
and to the peace of the world; that such a use of sovereign power
should be made with greater prudence and caution in American than in
European affairs, since its effects could not fail to be more serious.
That principle of international law was also invoked which regards
nations as moral persons, bound so to act toward each other that not
only the least injury but the most good-will be done. It was held that
this great principle of international law would be reduced to the
merest abstraction, too refined for an enlightened nation to practice,
if recognition were granted to the Confederacy.
Lastly, Mr. Adams was instructed to remind the British government
that the empire over which it ruled was made up of an aggregation of
divers communities covering a large portion of the earth and including
one-fifth of its total population; that many of its possessions were
held by ties no stronger than those which held together the Federal
Union; that a time would come when the strength of those bonds would be
put to a severe test by insurrection or otherwise; and to conclude by
asking whether it would be wise on that occasion to set so dangerous
a precedent or to pursue such a course as might invoke the future
retaliation of a powerful state.
Such were the arguments as they were outlined for the use of Mr. Adams
in answering the expected appeal of the Confederate agents for the
recognition of their government. They afford a thorough analysis of the
whole matter. Every possible argument for recognition is fairly stated,
fully discussed, and a logical conclusion reached. They are amply
sufficient to convince any candid mind that not a single valid reason
existed for recognizing the Confederacy, and that the mission of Mason
and Slidell deserved only failure.
AUTHORITIES AND REFERENCES.
1. Appleton’s Cyclopedia of American Biography.
2. Blaine, James G.: Twenty Years of Congress.
3. Congressional Globe: Part 1, 1st Session 36th Congress and Part 1,
2d Session 36th Congress.
4. Dana’s Wheaton’s International Law, note, pp. 653-6.
5. Diplomatic correspondence with Great Britain, 1861.
6. Lossing, B. J.: The Civil War in America.
7. Senate Ex. Doc.: 2d Session 37th Congress, Vol. I.
8. Winchester Virginian, May 16, 1861.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Congressional Globe, Dec., 1859.
[2] Letter to the Winchester Virginian, May 16, 1861.
[3] Congressional Globe, Feb. 4, 1861.
CHAPTER IX.
THE DEPARTURE OF THE COMMISSIONERS FOR EUROPE.
After all necessary arrangements for their departure had been made,
Messrs. Mason and Slidell experienced some difficulty in getting out
of the country. A strict blockade of all the Confederate ports was
maintained at that time and it was necessary for these men to await a
favorable opportunity to escape on some departing blockade-runner.
In the earliest days of blockade running, it was not always foreign
vessels alone that engaged in the business. The Confederates possessed
a few steamers that were armed for the naval service of the South and
also did duty as blockade-runners, carrying cargoes in and out of
the blockaded ports as often as they could conveniently do so. These
vessels were commissioned as privateers, or bore Jefferson Davis’s
letters of marque, in order that, while on their voyages, they might
capture and burn Federal merchant ships whenever they fell in with
them. To this class of vessels belonged the Gordon, which was afterward
renamed the Theodora.
Charleston seems to have been a favorite port for the operations of
the blockade-runners. It seems to have been more difficult to guard
than any of the other ports, and it was conveniently near to the
neutral ports of the West Indies. To this port, then, the commissioners
accordingly came. It was announced by the Confederate press that they
would take passage on the privateer Nashville, a very swift vessel
which was then lying in the harbor. On the night of October 10, 1861,
the Nashville passed out of the harbor in order to draw off any Federal
cruiser which might be hovering around outside with the intention of
giving chase to the vessel that should escape with the commissioners on
board.
It was arranged for the envoys to take passage on the armed steamer
Theodora. The entire party was composed of Mr. Mason and his secretary,
Mr. McFarland; Mr. Slidell, his wife and four children; Mr. Slidell’s
secretary, Mr. George Eustis, who was also accompanied by his wife, a
daughter of Mr. Corcoran, the eminent banker of Washington city.
The night of October 12 was dark and stormy. Rain was falling in
torrents as the Theodora left Charleston harbor a little past midnight.
In the intense darkness which prevailed she escaped the watchful
cruisers of the blockading squadron and arrived at Nassau, New
Providence, on the 13th. This was a British port where blockade-runners
and Confederate vessels of whatever kind always received a warm welcome.
The United States government sent armed vessels in pursuit as soon as
it was learned that Mason and Slidell had escaped, but the ship which
conveyed the envoys was not overtaken. The secret of their movements
had been well kept and several days had elapsed before news of their
departure was published, even in the Charleston papers. It is probable,
therefore, that the Federal authorities did not learn of the escape
in time for their steamers to have any chance whatever to overtake the
Theodora.
At Nassau the envoys had fully expected to take passage on an English
steamer, but were deterred from so doing when they learned that the
vessel would stop at New York on her route to Liverpool. Their journey
was, therefore, continued on board the Theodora to Cardenas in Cuba,
whence they afterward proceeded overland to Havana, and took lodgings
at the Hotel Cubana while waiting for the English steamer. The Theodora
continued her voyage to Havana and steamed into that port on the 17th
with Confederate colors flying. She was received with great honors at
the Cuban capital. A public reception was held at the Tacon Theater
in honor of her officers and crew. Captain Lockwood, of the Theodora,
was presented with a “handsome Confederate flag” by the ladies of
Havana, who sympathized with the southern cause. After a short stay the
Confederate steamer returned to Charleston.
As soon as the envoys arrived they were waited upon by her Britannic
majesty’s consul at Havana, Mr. Crawford, in full dress. This
gentleman introduced them to Captain-General Serrano as ministers of
the Confederate States on their way to England and France,[1] but the
Spanish officer would not receive them officially but only upon the
footing of distinguished gentlemen and strangers. The English consul
was very attentive to the envoys during their entire stay at Havana.
No attempt was made to conceal their station or identity, and with a
full knowledge of this, the consul’s son, who was agent for the British
line of steamers touching at Havana, allowed them to engage passage to
Southampton.
On November 7 the envoys and their party embarked on board the British
steamer Trent at Havana, with the full knowledge and consent of her
captain, who afterward did what he could to conceal their identity by
refusing to allow his passenger list and papers of the vessel to be
seen by a boarding officer from the San Jacinto.
The Trent was a British packet which made regular trips between Vera
Cruz and the Danish island of St. Thomas. It is was one of a line
of steamers which carried the English mails under contract with the
government. At St. Thomas direct connection was made with steamers
running to Southampton. The Trent had on board probably a hundred
passengers, a cargo of considerable value and a large quantity of
specie. The departure of the envoys from Havana on board this vessel
seemed to assure the safety of the remainder of their journey, since it
was to be made under a neutral flag.
The apparently successful journey of their commissioners was a cause of
congratulation among the Confederates. In discussing this matter the
Richmond Examiner probably voiced the sentiment of the Confederacy when
it said: “By this time our able representatives abroad, Messrs. Mason
and Slidell, are pretty well on their way over the briny deep toward
the shores of Europe. We commit no indiscretion in stating that they
have embarked upon a vessel which will be abundantly able to protect
them against most of the Yankee cruisers they may happen to meet, and
the chances are consequently a hundred to one that they will reach
their destination in safety. The malice of our Yankee enemies will thus
be foiled and the attempt to capture them fail of success. Great will
be the mortification of the Yankees when they shall have learned this
result. Our ministers did not choose to leave at any other port than
one of our own or under any but the Confederate flag.
“We anticipate from Mr. Mason’s presence in England a very happy effect
upon our interests in that quarter. Mr. Mason is, in his points of
character, a very good representative of the best qualities of the
English people. He is frank, bold and straightforward, disdaining
all concealments or evasions. His diplomacy will consist in telling
the truth in the language of a gentleman and a statesman. As the
representative of a name linked with the earlier ages of the American
republic, an ex-senator of the United States for many years, and
the honored servant of the Confederate government, he will wield an
influence abroad such as perhaps no other man could hope to enjoy. He
is the very best man we could send abroad to show foreign nations that
the Southerner is a different type altogether from the Yankee--that
he scorns like the latter to lie, to evade or dissemble, to fawn
or play the bully and the braggart; that the despicable traits of
avarice, meanness, cant and vulgarity which enter into the universal
idea of a Yankee were left behind us when we seceded from the Lincoln
government. We are glad to be able to contrast such a gentleman with
Charles Francis Adams, the Puritan representative of freedom at the
Court of St. James, and he knows little of British character who is
disposed to set a slight value upon the advantages derived from the
personal character of a representative in this matter. We believe that
at no distant day Mr. Mason will have the pleasure of signing a treaty
of amity, on behalf of the Confederate States, with one of the oldest
and greatest dynasties of Europe, and thus cement those relations of
commerce upon which our future so largely depends.”[2]
AUTHORITIES AND REFERENCES.
1. Battles and Leaders of the Civil War.
2. Bernard, Montague: Neutrality of Great Britain During the American
Civil War.
3. Lossing, B. J.: The Civil War in America.
4. Sharf, J. Thomas: History of the Confederate States Navy.
5. Reports of Captain Wilkes.
6. Richmond Examiner, Oct. 29, 1861.
7. Victor, O. J.: History of the Southern Rebellion.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] In a letter to Lord Lyons dated Dec. 2, 1861, Mr. Crawford denied
having done this.
[2] Richmond Examiner, Oct. 29, 1861.
CHAPTER X.
THE SEIZURE OF MASON AND SLIDELL BY CAPT. WILKES.
In August, 1861, the United States war steamer San Jacinto, a
first-class screw sloop mounting fifteen guns, left St. Paul de Loando
on the western coast of Africa where she had been engaged during
twenty months in an active cruise for slavers. She was at that time
temporarily commanded by Lieutenant D. M. Fairfax, of the United States
navy, who had been instructed to proceed to Fernando Po and await at
that place the arrival of Captain Charles Wilkes, an able naval officer
in the service of the United States. Captain Wilkes soon arrived and
took permanent command of the ship, Lieutenant Fairfax resuming his
former position of executive officer.
The name of Charles Wilkes was one which was not unknown in American
naval circles and in the scientific world. He had commanded an
exploring expedition to the South Polar Ocean and had discovered
there the dreary land which now bears his name. He was a man of great
scientific acquirements. That he had been a devoted student and an
original investigator in his chosen field is attested by his voluminous
scientific writings. The leisure hours of his long voyages among polar
icebergs and elsewhere were chiefly spent in that way. He was regarded
by his acquaintances as eccentric and independent in disposition.
After taking command of the San Jacinto, Captain Wilkes spent about
a month cruising close to the shore of Africa for the purpose of
ascertaining whether the Confederate privateers had taken any prizes to
that coast. Having arrived at Cape Verd about the last of September,
it was learned from newspapers received there that several Confederate
privateers had run the blockade and taken numerous prizes in the
waters of the West India islands. Captain Wilkes determined to cruise
about those islands for a time and capture some of the Confederate
privateers, before returning to New York. On October 10, 1861, the
San Jacinto arrived at the port of St. Thomas in the West Indies. The
Powhatan and the Iroquois, two United States war vessels, were already
there. On the day after the arrival of the San Jacinto the British
brig Spartan arrived, and her commander informed Captain Wilkes that
on October 5 his vessel had been boarded by a steamer, evidently a
war vessel in disguise, and that after answering all questions, he
could get no satisfactory information concerning the stranger. Being
shown a photograph of the Confederate privateer Sumter, he immediately
recognized it as the one by which his own vessel had been boarded. All
of the United States war vessels immediately left the harbor with the
hope of overtaking the Sumter. About ten days afterward the San Jacinto
touched at Cienfuegos on the south coast of Cuba. There it was learned
from the newspapers that the Confederate commissioners were at Havana,
having escaped in the Theodora.
Captain Wilkes immediately put to sea with the intention of
intercepting the Confederate vessel on her return to Charleston.
Arriving at Havana on October 28 it was learned that Messrs. Mason
and Slidell were still there as guests of the Hotel Cubana, where
one of Captain Wilkes’s officers met Mr. Mason in the parlor. The
commissioners were waiting for the English steamer Trent which would
leave Havana on November 7.
Upon hearing this latter bit of information, Captain Wilkes conceived
the bold design of intercepting the Trent and making prisoners of the
envoys, but about ten days must necessarily elapse before this plan
could be put into execution.
The Theodora had already started upon her return voyage to Charleston.
A supply of coal and provisions having been secured in great haste,
Captain Wilkes followed in the wake of the Theodora, but failed to
overtake her. The voyage was then continued to Key West in the hope
of finding there the Powhatan or some other United States war vessel
to accompany him to the Bahama Channel and assist in intercepting the
British mail packet. In this, however, he was disappointed, as the
Powhatan had left Key West on the day before the arrival of the San
Jacinto, and there was no available war steamer in the harbor. Nothing
daunted, however, Captain Wilkes resolved to undertake the enterprise
alone, and, having previously ascertained when the Trent would leave
Havana, he readily calculated when and where in the Bahama Channel it
would be easiest to intercept the British vessel.
Any doubt of his right to board the Trent and remove the envoys from
her seems never to have entered the mind of Captain Wilkes. Before
arriving at Key West, he took into his confidence Lieutenant Fairfax,
the executive officer of the San Jacinto, and told him of the plan to
intercept the British packet, and, if the Confederate commissioners
were on board her, to take them prisoners. Lieutenant Fairfax entered
a vigorous protest against the proposed action and urged strongly upon
Captain Wilkes the necessity of proceeding with the utmost caution
in order to avoid international difficulties and possibly a war with
England as a result of the affair. After reaching Key West Lieutenant
Fairfax suggested that Judge Marvin, an eminent authority upon maritime
law, should be consulted, but Captain Wilkes never asked advice of any
one after he had once resolved to do a thing.
Accordingly on the morning of November 5, the San Jacinto steamed out
of the harbor of Key West and directed her course toward Sagua la
Grande on the northern coast of Cuba. Having arrived there an attempt
was made to get information by telegraph from the United States consul
at Havana concerning the exact time of the departure of the Trent.
Failing in this the San Jacinto ran out about two hundred and fifty
miles from Havana and took a position in the Old Bahama Channel where
it contracts to a width of about fifteen miles. Being stationed about
the middle of the channel, Captain Wilkes determined to await the
passage of the Trent which he thought would not be able to pass him on
either side without being observed. With battery loaded and everything
in readiness, the San Jacinto cruised here during the night of November
7, and until about noon on the 8th, when a vessel was seen to be
approaching from the westward. When she had approached sufficiently
near a round shot was fired across her bows from the pivot-gun of the
San Jacinto and the American flag was hoisted at the same moment. The
approaching vessel displayed English colors, but did not check her
speed or show any disposition whatever to heave to. After a lapse of
some ten minutes, the English vessel still moving under a full head of
steam, a shell was fired across her bows, exploding several hundred
feet in front of her. This had the desired effect. The Trent, being
then only a few hundred yards distant, stopped. Captain Wilkes hailed
that he intended to send a boat to board her.
The following instructions had previously been issued to Lieutenant
Fairfax who had charge of the party that went on board the Trent:
“U. S. STEAMER SAN JACINTO,
“AT SEA, Nov. 8, 1861
“SIR--You will have the second and third cutters of this ship fully
manned and armed, and be in all respects prepared to board the
steamer Trent now hove-to under our guns.
“On boarding her you will demand the papers of the steamer, her
clearance from Havana, with the list of passengers and crew.
“Should Mr. Mason, Mr. Slidell, Mr. Eustis and Mr. McFarland be on
board you will make them prisoners, and send them on board this ship
immediately, and take possession of her as a prize.
“I do not deem it will be necessary to use force; that the prisoners
will have the good sense to avoid any necessity for using it; but if
they should, they must be made to understand that it is their own
fault. They must be brought on board. All trunks, cases, packages and
bags belonging to them you will take possession of, and send on board
this ship. Any dispatches found on the persons of the prisoners, or
in possession of those on board the steamer, will be taken possession
of also, examined, and retained, if necessary.
“I have understood that the families of these gentlemen may be with
them. If so, I beg you will offer them, in my name, a passage in this
ship to the United States, and that all the attention and comforts we
can command are tendered them, and will be placed in their service.
“In the event of their acceptance, should there be anything which the
captain of the steamer can spare to increase the comforts in the way
of necessaries or stores, of which a war vessel is deficient, you
will please to procure them. The amount will be paid by the paymaster.
“Lieutenant James A. Greer will take charge of the third cutter,
which accompanies you, and assist you in these duties.
“I trust that all those under your command, in executing this
important and delicate duty, will conduct themselves with all the
delicacy and kindness which becomes the character of our naval
service.
“I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
“CHARLES WILKES, Captain.
“LIEUTENANT D. M. FAIRFAX,
“U. S. N., Executive Officer San Jacinto.”
Captain Moir of the Trent was evidently much angered at the manner
in which he had been compelled to stop, and called out through his
trumpet, “What do you mean by heaving my vessel to in this manner?”
Lieutenant Fairfax says that he was greatly impressed with the gravity
of the situation and resolved to perform his disagreeable duty with
the utmost possible courtesy. In a few minutes the boats had reached
the Trent, and, directing his crew to remain alongside for orders,
Lieutenant Fairfax boarded the British vessel alone and was escorted
by the first officer to the quarter-deck. There he was introduced to
Captain Moir, who manifested great indignation at what he styled the
unusual treatment he had received, although he observed the outward
forms of courtesy in receiving the American lieutenant, who at once
asked to see the passenger list, but this request was denied by the
British captain. Lieutenant Fairfax then said that he had information
of the Confederate commissioners and their secretaries having taken
passage at Havana, and that he would satisfy himself as to whether
Messrs. Mason and Slidell were on board before allowing the steamer to
proceed. Mr. Slidell, evidently hearing his own name mentioned, stepped
up and said, “I am Mr. Slidell; do you want to see me?” Mr. Mason, with
whom Lieutenant Fairfax was well acquainted, came up at the same time
and was asked about the two secretaries, Messrs. Eustis and McFarland.
They were pointed out as they stood near. Having the four desired
gentlemen before him then, Lieutenant Fairfax informed Captain Moir
that he had been ordered by his commander to arrest them and send them
prisoners on board the San Jacinto near by.
In the meantime the passengers, numbering almost one hundred, many
of them being southerners, had crowded upon the deck, and a howl of
rage and indignation burst from them when the object of the visit to
the Trent was announced. The British captain, the commissioners and
their secretaries were quiet and dignified, but the other passengers
yelled, “Throw the d---- fellow overboard.” Lieutenant Fairfax then
asked Captain Moir to preserve order and also reminded the passengers
that the deck of the Trent was being closely watched through glasses
from the San Jacinto, that a heavy battery was at that moment trained
upon them and that to carry out their threat might result in dreadful
consequences. This, with the example set by the captain, restored
partial order. During the uproar caused by the first announcement of
Lieutenant Fairfax’s object in visiting the Trent, the guard which had
been left below, fearing violence to him, came hurrying to the upper
deck. At sight of the marines Captain Moir remonstrated and Lieutenant
Fairfax ordered them to return to their boat with an assurance to the
British captain that they had come up contrary to instructions. The
purpose of the visit was then discussed more generally, Captain Moir
saying very little. Among those on board who were noisiest and most
abusive was Commander Richard Williams, an officer on the retired
list of the royal navy in charge of her majesty’s mails. He denounced
the whole proceeding in the bitterest and most offensive language
possible, repeatedly stating that he officially represented the British
government, that he meant to report the matter at once, that England
would break the blockade of the southern ports in twenty days and that
the northerners might as well give up now. His formal “protest” on the
deck of the Trent was as follows: “In this ship I am the representative
of her majesty’s government, and I call upon the officers of the ship
and passengers generally to mark my words, when, in the name of the
British government, and in distinct language, I denounce this as an
illegal act, an act in violation of international law; an act indeed of
wanton piracy, which, had we the means of defense, you would not dare
to attempt.” Not the slightest notice was taken of Commander Williams
or his insults either by Lieutenant Fairfax or any of his men, as they
could have official relations only with Captain Moir. Mrs. Slidell
inquired who was in command of the San Jacinto, and upon being informed
that it was Captain Wilkes she expressed surprise at his playing
into Confederate hands by doing a thing which would certainly arouse
England, thus accomplishing what the southern people most desired. Mr.
Mason suggested to her that the matter be not discussed at that time.
Both Mrs. Slidell and Mrs. Eustis declined to accept Captain Wilkes’s
offer of his cabin, and declared their intention not to leave the Trent.
After trying in vain to induce the commissioners and their secretaries
to go with him peaceably, Lieutenant Fairfax called to one of the
officers in his boat below and directed him to return to Captain
Wilkes with the information that the gentlemen whom they desired to
arrest were all on board, but that force would be necessary to execute
the order to remove them from the packet. Lieutenant James A. Greer
was at once sent with another boat in which were a number of armed
marines. A comfortable boat was also sent for the commissioners and
their secretaries; a second for their luggage, and still a third for
provisions which had been purchased from the steward of the Trent for
the benefit of the prisoners.
Meanwhile Messrs. Mason and Slidell had repaired to their respective
cabins and arranged their luggage, but still insisted that force would
be necessary to compel them to go. Lieutenant Greer’s armed marines
were then brought up and formed just outside the main deck cabin.
Calling to his aid several officers who had been previously instructed
concerning their duties, Lieutenant Fairfax said to them, “Gentlemen,
lay your hands upon Mr. Mason,” which they accordingly did, seizing
him by the shoulders and the coat-collar. Mr. Mason then said that
he yielded to force under protest and would go, after which he was
escorted to the boat in waiting.
Lieutenant Fairfax then returned for Mr. Slidell who insisted that
considerable force would be necessary to remove him. During all of
this time excitement was rapidly increasing among the passengers. They
crowded around the entrance to the cabin making a great deal of noise
and all kinds of disagreeable and contemptuous remarks, such as: “Did
you ever hear of such an outrage?” “These Yankees will have to pay well
for this.” “This is the best thing in the world for the South; England
will open the blockade.” “We will have a good chance at them now.” “Did
you ever hear of such a piratical act?” “They would not have dared to
have done it, if an English man-of-war had been in sight.” One person,
supposed to be a passenger, became so violent that the captain ordered
him to be locked up. Commander Williams, it is said, advised Captain
Moir to arm the crew and passengers. The confusion and loud talking
increased. Lieutenant Greer, in charge of the armed marines stationed
just outside of the main deck cabin, feared that there would be
trouble, as he heard some one near Lieutenant Fairfax call out, “Shoot
him.” An order was given for the marines to advance into the cabin at
quickstep. As they moved forward with fixed bayonets the passengers
fell back. A passage-way was cleared and the armed guard ordered back.
Mr. Slidell at the same moment jumped out of a window of a state-room
into the cabin. He was then seized by two of the officers and enough of
force applied to convey him into the boat with Mr. Mason.
Many accounts of this affair state that while her father was being
taken out of the cabin, Miss Slidell, a young lady of perhaps
seventeen, screamed and slapped Lieutenant Fairfax in the face. The
truth of the matter seems to be that while the lieutenant was at the
door of Mr. Slidell’s state-room, the latter’s daughter was protesting
against having her father taken from her when a slight roll of the ship
caused Miss Slidell to lose her balance for a moment and involuntarily
to touch Lieutenant Fairfax’s shoulder. The two secretaries entered the
boat quietly under protest. The entire party was then transferred to
the San Jacinto. Their luggage having been put into another boat was
also transferred.
It will be noticed from the instructions given by Captain Wilkes to
Lieutenant Fairfax that the latter’s orders were to take possession of
the Trent as a prize after having captured the commissioners. When the
transfer had been made, Lieutenant Fairfax returned to the San Jacinto
and reported that he had not made a prize of the Trent in accordance
with his original orders, assigning at the same time satisfactory
reasons for not having done so. The first was that as the San Jacinto
was expecting to move northward at once and co-operate with Admiral
Du Pont in his naval attack on Port Royal, their force and efficiency
would be greatly weakened, if a large prize crew of officers and men
should be put on board the Trent in order to carry her into port. The
second reason was that great inconvenience and loss would be occasioned
to the large number of innocent passengers aboard the Trent. After
consideration of these suggestions Captain Wilkes approved them and
consented that the Trent be allowed to go. Lieutenant Fairfax then
returned to the Trent and informed Captain Moir that he would be
detained no longer and that he might continue his voyage. The British
vessel then continued on her course, having been detained about two
hours by the San Jacinto.
Lieutenant Fairfax says that he resolved in the very beginning to
perform his duty as courteously as possible so as not to irritate the
British captain, his passengers, or the envoys lest they might decide
to throw the Trent upon his hands, which would necessitate his taking
her as a prize. While the Trent was stationary, with steam shut off,
she drifted out of channel and into sight of shoal water. Captain Moir
noticed this and said to Lieutenant Fairfax, “If you do not hurry and
get out of my vessel, I will not be responsible for her safety.” The
lieutenant at once hailed the San Jacinto and requested that she be
kept more nearly in the middle of the channel. After she had taken a
new position Lieutenant Fairfax said to Captain Moir: “Now you can move
up nearer to the San Jacinto.” This he accordingly did. Lieutenant
Fairfax cites this to show how careful he was to keep the British
captain in an agreeable frame of mind so that the chances of his
throwing the Trent upon the hands of the Americans would be less.
Lieutenant Fairfax gives an account of a conversation which he had
with Captain Moir at St. Thomas after the close of the war. The latter
“reverted to an interview he had with the British admiralty on his
return to England whither he had been from St. Thomas. The admiralty
were very much displeased with him for not having thrown the Trent on
our hands, to which he replied (so he said to me) that it had never
occurred to him; that in fact, the officer who boarded the Trent was
so civil and had so closely occupied him in conversation about foreign
matters, that he had failed to see what afterward was very plain. He
recounted the excitement on ’change over the affair, and expressed the
conviction that all England would have demanded speedy redress had I
taken the Trent. He had seen the reports in print in our newspapers,
and had read my order to take possession and wondered that I had
not.”[1]
After parting company with the Trent the San Jacinto proceeded to the
Florida coast and thence northward, but was too late to take part in
the attack on Port Royal. On November 15 Fortress Monroe was reached.
Captain Wilkes came ashore and reported the seizure. His report of
the movements of the ship and the facts in regard to the capture of
the commissioners was forwarded to Washington by Lieutenant Taylor,
who was a passenger from the coast of Africa to the national capital.
In an extended talk with Captain Wilkes, General Wool, who was then
in command of Fortress Monroe, expressed the opinion that the right
thing had been done in capturing the commissioners, and that, if
a wrong had been committed, no greater penalty than “cashiering”
could be inflicted. On November 16, after receiving Captain Wilkes’s
report, the following telegram was sent to the commandant of the New
York navy yard by the secretary of the navy: “You will send the San
Jacinto immediately to Boston, and direct Captain Wilkes to deliver the
prisoners at Fort Warren. Let their baggage be strictly guarded and
delivered to the colonel at Fort Warren for examination.” On the same
day the following telegram, which had been united in by the secretary
of state and the secretary of the navy, was sent to Robert Murray,
United States marshal at New York: “You will proceed in the San Jacinto
to Fort Warren, Boston, with Messrs. Mason and Slidell and suite. No
persons from shore are to be permitted on board the vessel prior to her
departure from New York.”
Severe weather and a lack of coal compelled Captain Wilkes to stop
at Newport, Rhode Island, on November 21. The prisoners expressed a
wish to be allowed “to remain in custody at Newport on account of the
comparative mildness of the climate,” which they thought would benefit
the delicate health of one of their number. They offered to pledge
themselves “not to make any attempt to escape, nor to communicate with
any person while there unless permitted to do so.” The matter having
been referred by telegraph to the secretary of the navy, he immediately
sent the following reply: “The government has prepared no place for
confinement of the prisoners at Newport. The department can not change
the destination of the prisoners.” Two days before the arrival of
the San Jacinto at Boston, Captain Hudson, who was in command of the
Boston navy yard, received the following telegram from Gideon Welles,
secretary of the navy: “Direct Captain Wilkes immediately upon his
arrival to have the effects of the rebel prisoners on board the San
Jacinto thoroughly examined, and whatever papers may be found to send
them by special messenger to the department.” Finally the San Jacinto
steamed into Boston harbor on November 24, after having encountered
both a heavy fog and a very severe storm off the coast of New England.
During the entire voyage of sixteen days the prisoners had been
treated with great courtesy. They messed with Captain Wilkes at his
table, and occupied his cabin. Lieutenant Fairfax frequently talked
with Mr. Eustis while on the way. The latter expressed the opinion
that Great Britain would demand the release of the prisoners and that
the United States would have to accede. Before leaving the ship the
prisoners addressed a courteous note to Captain Wilkes thanking him
for the kindness with which they had been treated while on board his
vessel. When first brought on board, however, they prepared and signed
a formal protest against the manner in which they had been seized.
They requested that it be forwarded to the government of the United
States. This was done by Captain Wilkes when his own report was sent.
The prisoners knew very well that it would have no effect whatever on
the government of the United States. It was a statement intended for
Confederate sympathizers in Europe and elsewhere. The commissioners
doubtless thought that their protest of injured innocence would secure
much sympathy for them abroad.
Colonel Dimmick, in command of Fort Warren, took charge of the
prisoners and their baggage, which consisted of about half a dozen
trunks and as many valises, several cases containing an assortment
of fine wines and liquors and a good supply of cigars. A careful
examination was made but no dispatches were found among their effects.
None had been asked for and no particular effort had been made to
secure them when the Trent was boarded. Whatever of dispatches that
were in possession of the commissioners were doubtless secretly given
to some of the other passengers of the Trent--probably the ladies--and
by them conveyed to England from St. Thomas in the British steamer La
Plata.[2]
On November 16, the day after his departure from Fortress Monroe,
Captain Wilkes prepared his final report of the capture. A number
of passages in this report are of great interest, giving, as they
do, his reasons for making the capture, and his arguments by which
he justifies the act. He says: “I determined to intercept them, and
carefully examined all the authorities on international law to
which I had access, viz.: Kent, Wheaton and Vattel, besides various
decisions of Sir William Scott, and other judges of the admiralty court
of Great Britain, which bore upon the rights of neutrals and their
responsibilities.”
“The question arose in my mind whether I had the right to capture
the persons of these commissioners--whether they were amenable to
capture. There was no doubt I had the right to capture vessels with
written dispatches; they are expressly referred to in all authorities,
subjecting the vessel to seizure and condemnation if the captain of the
vessel had the knowledge of their being on board, but these gentlemen
were not dispatches in the literal sense, and did not seem to come
under that designation, and nowhere could I find a case in point.”
“That they were commissioners I had ample proof from their own avowal,
and bent on mischievous and traitorous errands against our country, to
overthrow its institutions, and enter into treaties and alliances with
foreign states, expressly forbidden by the constitution.”
“I then considered them as the embodiment of dispatches, and as they
had openly declared themselves as charged with all authority from the
Confederate government to form treaties and alliances tending to the
establishment of their independence, I became satisfied that their
mission was adverse and criminal to the Union, and it therefore became
my duty to arrest their progress and capture them if they had no
passports from the Federal government, as provided for under the law of
nations, viz.: ‘That foreign ministers of a belligerent on board of
neutral ships are required to possess papers from the other belligerent
to permit them to pass free.’”
“They went into the steamer with the knowledge and by the consent of
the captain, who endeavored afterward to conceal them by refusing to
exhibit his passenger list and the papers of the vessel. There can be
no doubt he knew they were carrying highly important dispatches, and
were endowed with instructions inimical to the United States. This
rendered his vessel (a neutral) a very good prize, and I determined to
take possession of her, and, as I mentioned in my report, send her to
Key West for adjudication, when, I am well satisfied, she would have
been condemned for carrying these persons, and for resisting to be
searched. The cargo was also liable, as all the shippers were knowing
to the embarkation of these live dispatches, and their traitorous
motives and actions to the Union of the United States.”
“I forbore to seize her, however, in consequence of my being so reduced
in officers and crew, and the derangement it would cause innocent
persons, there being a large number of passengers who would have
been put to great loss and inconvenience, as well as disappointment,
from the interruption it would have caused them in not being able to
join the steamer from St. Thomas to Europe. I therefore concluded to
sacrifice the interests of my officers and crew in the prize, and
suffered the steamer to proceed, after the necessary detention to
effect the transfer of these commissioners, considering I had obtained
the important end I had in view, and which affected the interests of
our country and interrupted the action of that of the Confederates.”
A perusal of these paragraphs from Captain Wilkes’s report is
sufficient to show that he acted in accordance with what he believed to
be his duty, and if subsequent events proved him to be in the wrong, it
was only an error of judgment.
AUTHORITIES AND REFERENCES.
1. Appleton’s Cyclopedia of American Biography.
2. Fairfax, D. M.: Account of the Seizure of Mason and Slidell in
Volume II of “Battles and Leaders of the Civil War.”
3. Magazine of American History, March, 1886.
4. Log Book of the San Jacinto.
5. Moore’s Rebellion Record, Vol. III.
6. Official reports of the officers who visited the Trent.
7. Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of
the Rebellion. Ser. I, Vol. I.
8. Paris, Comte de: The Civil War in America.
9. Reports of Captain Wilkes.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Battles and Leaders of the Civil War, Vol. II, p. 142.
[2] It seems that a Mr. Hanckel, of Charleston, took charge of them and
delivered them to the Confederate agents, Yancey, Rost and Mann, in
London. See U. S. and Confederate Naval Records, Ser. I, Vol. I, p. 155.
CHAPTER XI.
THE EFFECT IN AMERICA.
The fact of Messrs. Mason and Slidell’s appointment, the nature of
their mission to Europe, and their desire to escape through the
blockade and proceed to their respective destinations, was well
understood throughout the northern states before the commissioners left
Charleston. All of these matters had been published in the New York
and other northern newspapers before the close of October, 1861. To
this was added in due time an account of the running of the blockade
at Charleston by the Theodora with the envoys on board. Knowing the
character of these men, and the disposition of the governments of
France, and especially of England, toward the United States, the loyal
people of the North felt somewhat solicitous concerning the outcome of
this traitorous mission.
When Captain Wilkes came ashore at Fortress Monroe on November 15, and
announced that he had captured the envoys, and had them prisoners on
board his vessel, and when the telegraph flashed this news throughout
the northern states, the people were prepared to receive it with the
greatest demonstrations of delight. No event of the war up to that
time caused so much genuine rejoicing in all of the states except
those composing the Confederacy. The people of the North had been so
completely engrossed by the peculiar spirit of war time that they were
not prepared to consider correctly the real issue which was certain
to be involved in this act of a popular sea captain. The masses did
not stop at first to consider its policy, neither did they question
its legality. It was to them only the capture of two dangerous rebels.
To the masses it was a matter which concerned only themselves and the
public enemy in the South. In the beginning it never occurred to any
one that the envoys had been taken from the protection of the flag
of a great maritime nation beyond the sea--a power that was disposed
to be unfriendly to the United States, and that this semi-hostile
nation might deny the right to make such a seizure and offer only the
alternative of war, in case of a refusal to liberate the prisoners.
War times are productive of heroes and hero-worship. The name of
Captain Charles Wilkes was at once added to the list of heroes which
the war had thus far developed. Praises of the gallant captain and his
wonderful exploit were sounded throughout the length and breadth of the
loyal states. Newspapers and public officials could not say too much
in support of his act. The bookwrights at once incorporated into their
war histories not only the story of the hero and his valor in seizing
the ambassadors, but also an account of his intimate acquaintance with
international law from which he had deduced an unanswerable argument to
justify his action.
On November 26, two days after the arrival of Captain Wilkes in Boston
harbor, a banquet was given to him and his officers at the Revere
House in that city. Hon. J. Edmunds Wiley presided. The conservative
Bostonians became quite enthusiastic over the recent capture of the
commissioners. The presiding officer highly applauded the act. He
was followed by Hon. John A. Andrew, governor of Massachusetts, who
thought the act exhibited “not only wise judgment but also manly and
heroic success.” He declared that it was “one of the most illustrious
services that had made the war memorable,” and rejoiced in the idea
that the gallant captain then present had “fired a shot across the bows
of the ship that bore the English lion’s head.” Chief Justice Bigelow
delivered a speech containing similar sentiments. Captain Wilkes and
Lieutenant Fairfax also made speeches, in which the capture was briefly
described. In the course of his speech Captain Wilkes said: “Before
deciding on the course I adopted, I examined the authorities--Kent,
Wheaton, and the rest--and satisfied myself that these ‘commissioners’
or ‘ministers’ as they styled themselves, had no rights which attach
to such functionaries when properly appointed, and finding that I had
a right to take written dispatches, I took it for granted that I had a
right to take these ‘commissioners’ as the embodiments of dispatches.
I therefore took it upon myself to say to those gentlemen that they
must produce their passports from the general government, and as they
could not do that, I arrested them.” At New York an ovation was given
to Captain Wilkes, and the hospitality of that city was offered to him.
At a stated meeting of the New York Historical Society at which he
was present, on December 3, he was elected by acclamation an honorary
member of that body. Special honors were also tendered to him at
Washington about the middle of the month.
Everybody was electrified by the good news. Every member of the cabinet
was elated by the capture except Mr. Blair.[1] When the message which
announced the capture was brought into the office of Simon Cameron,
secretary of war, Governor Andrew of Massachusetts and a number of
other distinguished men were present. Cheer after cheer was given with
a will by the delighted assemblage, led by the secretary and heartily
seconded by Governor Andrew.
In the beginning Mr. Seward, secretary of state, approved of the
proceeding of Captain Wilkes and rejoiced over it. At first “no man was
more elated or jubilant over the capture of the emissaries than Mr.
Seward, who, for a time, made no attempt to conceal his gratification
and approval of the act of Wilkes.”[2]
Hon. Gideon Welles, secretary of the navy, was much pleased, and sent
the following congratulatory letter to Captain Wilkes:
“NAVY DEPARTMENT, Nov. 30, 1861.
_Captain Charles Wilkes, Commanding U. S. S. San Jacinto, Boston_:
DEAR SIR--I congratulate you on your safe arrival, and especially do
I congratulate you on the great public service you have rendered in
the capture of the rebel commissioners, Messrs. Mason and Slidell,
who have been conspicuous in the conspiracy to dissolve the Union,
and it is well known that, when seized by you, they were on a mission
hostile to the government and the country.
“Your conduct in seizing these public enemies was marked by
intelligence, ability, decision and firmness, and has the emphatic
approval of this department. It is not necessary that I should in
this communication--which is intended to be one of congratulation to
yourself, officers and crew--express an opinion on the course pursued
in omitting to capture the vessel which had these public enemies on
board, further than to say that the forbearance exercised in this
instance must not be permitted to constitute a precedent hereafter
for infractions of neutral obligations.
“I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,
“GIDEON WELLES.”
In his annual naval report, issued a few days after the congratulatory
letter was written, Secretary Welles said: “Captain Wilkes, in command
of the San Jacinto, while searching in the West Indies for the Sumter,
received information that James M. Mason and John Slidell, disloyal
citizens and leading conspirators, were, with their suite, to embark
from Havana in the English steamer Trent, on their way to Europe, to
promote the cause of the insurgents. Cruising in the Bahama Channel
he intercepted the Trent on the 8th of November, and took from her
these dangerous men, whom he brought to the United States. His vessel
having been ordered to refit for service at Charleston, the prisoners
were retained on board and conveyed to Fort Warren, where they were
committed to the custody of Colonel Dimmick, in command of the fortress.
“The prompt and decisive action of Captain Wilkes on this occasion
merited and received the emphatic approval of this department, and if
a too generous forbearance was exhibited by him in not capturing the
vessel which had these rebel emissaries on board, it may, in view of
the special circumstances and of its patriotic motives, be excused, but
it must by no means be permitted to constitute a precedent hereafter
for the treatment of any case of similar infraction of neutral
obligations by foreign vessels engaged in commerce or the carrying
trade.”
On Monday, December 2, congress assembled and before the close of the
first day’s session, Mr. Lovejoy, of Illinois, by unanimous consent,
offered a joint resolution which read as follows:
“_Resolved_, That the thanks of congress are due, and are hereby
tendered, to Captain Wilkes, of the United States navy, for his brave,
adroit and patriotic conduct in the arrest and detention of the
traitors, James M. Mason and John Slidell.”
Mr. Edgerton, of Ohio, moved the following resolution as a substitute,
viz.:
“That the president of the United States be requested to present
Captain Charles Wilkes a gold medal, with suitable emblems and devices,
in testimony of the high sense entertained by congress of his good
conduct in promptly arresting the rebel ambassadors, James M. Mason and
John Slidell.”
This substitute was not agreed to, however, but the joint resolution
offered by Mr. Lovejoy was promptly passed.
On the same day Mr. Colfax, of Indiana, offered the following preamble
and resolution:
“WHEREAS, Colonel Michael Corcoran, who was taken prisoner on the
battlefield of Manassas, has, after suffering other indignities, been
confined by the rebel authorities in the cell of a convicted felon;
therefore,
“_Resolved_, That the president of the United States be requested to
similarly confine James M. Mason, late of Virginia, now in custody
at Fort Warren, until Colonel Corcoran shall be treated as all the
prisoners of war, taken by the United States on the battlefield, have
been treated.”
This preamble and resolution was adopted without dissent.
Just before adjournment on the same day, Hon. Moses F. Odell, of New
York, introduced the following preamble and resolution:
“WHEREAS, Colonel Alfred M. Wood, of the fourteenth regiment of New
York state militia, who was wounded and taken prisoner at the battle of
Bull Run, has now, by rebel authorities, been ordered to confinement
in a felon’s prison, and, by the same order, is to be treated as a
prisoner convicted of infamous crimes; therefore,
“_Resolved_, That the president of the United States be respectfully
requested to order John Slidell to the same character of prison, and to
the same treatment, until Colonel Wood shall be treated as the United
States have treated all prisoners taken in battle.”
This was read, considered and agreed to.[3]
When the news of the capture was first received, the press throughout
the North heartily indorsed the act and indulged in the most
extravagant expressions of joy. One metropolitan newspaper said:
“There is no drawback to our jubilation. The universal Yankee nation
is getting decidedly awake. As for Captain Wilkes and his command, let
the handsome thing be done. Consecrate another 4th of July to him,
load him down with services of plate and swords of the cunningest and
costliest art. Let us encourage the happy inspiration that achieved
such a victory.” Another prominent newspaper said: “Two of the magnates
of the Southern Confederacy, two, perhaps, who have been as potent for
mischief as any that could have been selected (out of South Carolina)
from the long list of political ingrates, have ‘come to grief’ in their
persistent attempts to destroy the noble government to which they owe
all the honorable distinction they have hitherto enjoyed.”
Amateur poets all over the country found Captain Wilkes’s exploit a
fitting theme to be celebrated in the best verse which they were able
to produce. The columns of the New York Evening Post, the Brooklyn
Times, the Indianapolis Journal and other leading newspapers were
graced by original contributions of this kind.
In the great storm of applause that passed over the country immediately
after the capture had been announced, no dissenting voices could
be heard. The more conservative opinions must needs wait for an
opportunity to be heard. While most of the cabinet, the house of
representatives, the people and the press were bestowing praises
without stint upon Captain Wilkes and his heroic deed there was one
grave, thoughtful man who was able to look beyond the mere fact of the
capture of two dangerous traitors and conspirators of the South, and
see the real issues which he felt certain would be involved in the
affair. In that man at that time was vested a greater executive power
than has been wielded by any English-speaking person during the last
two hundred years. In his opinion it was not a matter for rejoicing.
In the evening of the day when the news of the capture was first
received in Washington, Dr. Benson J. Lossing, the eminent historian,
and Hon. Elisha Whittlesy, comptroller of the treasury, called at the
White House and were accorded a brief interview with President Lincoln.
To them he said: “I fear the traitors will prove to be white elephants.
We must stick to American principles concerning the rights of neutrals.
We fought Great Britain for insisting, by theory and practice, on the
right to do precisely what Captain Wilkes has done. If Great Britain
shall now protest against the act, and demand their release, we must
give them up, apologize for the act as a violation of our doctrines,
and thus forever bind her over to keep the peace in relation to
neutrals, and so acknowledge that she has been wrong for sixty years.”
We are also told by a member of Mr. Lincoln’s cabinet that while the
rejoicing was well-nigh universal, the president was troubled with
doubt and anxiety concerning the final result of the seizure. He could
not see the matter in the same way as did his secretary of state.
Having taken counsel with Senator Sumner concerning the matter, Mr.
Lincoln’s doubts and apprehensions were much increased.
It is a fact worthy of notice that no mention whatever is made of
the capture in Mr. Lincoln’s annual message to congress, December
3, 1861. He probably thought it inexpedient under the circumstances
either to discuss the matter or even to allude to it. He may have been
considering in his own mind what the final outcome of the matter would
be when he penned the following significant passage which appears in
his message: “Since, however, it is apparent that here, as in every
other state, foreign dangers necessarily attend domestic difficulties,
I recommend that adequate and ample measures be adopted for maintaining
the public defenses on every side, while under this general
recommendation provision for defending our coast line readily occurs to
the mind, and also in the same connection ask the attention of congress
to our great lakes and rivers. It is believed that some fortifications
and depots of arms and munitions, with harbor navigation improvements
at well selected points upon these, would be of great importance to
the nation’s defense and preservation, and ask attention to the views
of the secretary of war expressed in his report upon the same general
subject.”
Mr. Blair, Lincoln’s postmaster-general, seems from the first to have
held more radical views concerning the matter than did the president
or any one else. He did not publicly discuss the case, but to the
other members of the cabinet he denounced Captain Wilkes’s act as an
outrage on the British flag, which, he said, the English ministry would
seize upon to make war upon the United States. Not being an admirer of
Captain Wilkes, Mr. Blair said that he should be ordered to take the
Iroquois, with Messrs. Mason and Slidell on board, proceed to England
and deliver them over to the British government. This, he thought,
would be a manifestation of the greatest contempt and indifference for
the Confederate ambassadors, and a severe rebuke to whatever of alleged
intrigues that may have existed between the insurgents in the United
States and the English cabinet.
After the first wave of universal rejoicing had passed over the
country, the legality of the act was publicly discussed at length by
the press and the ablest jurists. The Baltimore American said that
it was “a violation of the laws of neutrality strictly considered.”
Afterward the same journal said that it was a matter which was
“beyond the reach of mere diplomacy,” since “in numerous ways the
government and people have fully indorsed the act of Captain Wilkes,
and the verdict will never be reversed, although all Europe, with
England at its head, demand it.” One of the principal newspapers of
Washington[4] said: “The British government should direct Lord Lyons
to return the thanks of her majesty to the United States government
for its forbearance in not having seized the steamer Trent, brought
her into port, and confiscated ship and cargo, for an open and
flagrant breach of international law. The queen’s proclamation of May
last acknowledged the rebel states to be belligerents--enemies of
the United States--and by their own principles of international law,
British ships were thereafter to abstain from carrying dispatches, or
doing any act that favored the Confederates, under penalty of seizure
and confiscation. Slidell and Mason should be held in rigid custody
until they can be tried and punished for their crimes against the
government of the United States. Their sham character of ambassadors
affords no protection. It is a lawful right of belligerents to seize an
ambassador, as soon as any other person, if he can be caught at sea.”
The National Intelligencer said: “The proceeding of Captain Wilkes is
fully justified by the rules of international law as those rules have
been expounded by the most illustrious British jurists and compiled by
the most approved writers on the law of nations.” This position was
maintained by citing numerous British authorities. Such a position had
been taken by the British government in the declaration of war against
Russia in 1854, when the following language was used: “It is impossible
for her majesty to forego her right of seizing articles contraband of
war, and of preventing neutrals from bearing enemies’ dispatches.” Hon.
Lewis Cass expressed the opinion that the seizure was justifiable from
the standpoint of international law.
Hon. Edward Everett expressed a like opinion in an address before
the Middlesex Mechanics’ Association at Lowell. He said that “the
commissioners imprisoned in Fort Warren would no doubt be kept there
until the restoration of peace, which we all so much desire.” It
was said by another equally good authority that “the act of Captain
Wilkes was in strict accordance with the principles of international
law recognized in England, and in strict conformity with English
practice.”[5] Numerous other opinions were volunteered, among them one
from the English consul at New Orleans, who thought the act entirely
in accord with the principles of international law as based upon
English precedents, and from them furnished material for an editorial
in one of the city newspapers. George Ticknor Curtis, the well known
constitutional lawyer of Boston, said the Trent should have been
brought into port for adjudication in a prize court.
On November 21, at a diplomatic dinner in Washington, there was a full
and free discussion of the act of Captain Wilkes. The opinion prevailed
with almost perfect unanimity that the seizure was wholly unauthorized
by the principles of international law, and some of the ministers took
even more advanced grounds than these and asserted that the act, if not
disavowed by the United States government, would be a justifiable cause
of war.
A special correspondent of one of the principal western newspapers a
few days later took a view of the case different from the most common
ones at that time. Among other things he said: “But there is another
view of the case, and a highly important one, which ought to be well
considered. By justifying the act of Captain Wilkes, the United States
justifies also that very conduct on the part of England toward this
country, our resistance to which caused the war of 1812, namely, the
right of search; and we abandon the vantage on this great question
on which we have heretofore stood. The question then is simply and
absolutely this: Is it expedient for the sake of a mere temporary
advantage, and a slight one at that, for us to abandon the position on
the question of the right of search which we have heretofore held, and
assume England’s position on that question? It is by no means certain
that the arrest of these gentlemen may not be a positive advantage to
the South, as the developments of the next two weeks may show. Besides,
and over and above all other considerations, it is always better for
nations to maintain such a strong and impregnable position as ours was
on the right of search than to abandon it for such a slight advantage
as this will be. If we give up the ground we occupy on that question,
as we shall have to do if we justify the arrest of Mason and Slidell,
we will have to submit tamely to the indignities of having all of our
merchant vessels searched by every English cruiser that crosses their
path, and of having our seamen impressed again into the British naval
service.”[6]
It was also asserted in New York about this time that the queen’s
neutrality proclamation, which had forbidden her subjects to carry
dispatches for either of the belligerents, had been violated by Captain
Moir of the Trent, and it was proposed that an English subscription
should be taken for the purpose of prosecuting him in case the queen’s
attorney-general or the owners of the vessel declined to bring a suit
against him.
Such was the effect of the capture as far as the northern states were
concerned. At first there was universal rejoicing. This was followed
by more or less of doubt, and by discussion in justification of the
act. As the weeks progressed, anxiety developed concerning the position
which England would assume in regard to the matter. At that time there
was no ocean telegraph and weeks must necessarily elapse before any
news could be received from the opposite side of the Atlantic. Meantime
Lord Lyons maintained absolute silence in regard to the matter. If,
during this time, he expressed any opinion, there is no record of it.
It was said by the press that “his lordship was in a pet.” He was too
discreet to express any opinion when he did not know what position his
government would assume in regard to the act.
The sentiments of the Confederacy were freely expressed as soon as it
was known there that the envoys had been captured and brought to the
United States. The New Orleans Crescent said that Captain Wilkes’s act
was a “high-handed interference with a British mail steamer by the
Lincoln government,” and that it would “either arouse John Bull to the
highest pitch of indignation or demonstrate that there has been an
understanding between the two governments for a long time--that England
has been and is assisting the abolition government to the detriment of
the South.”
In a few days after the seizure, Jefferson Davis sent a message
to the Confederate congress, in the course of which he said: “The
distinguished gentlemen, who, with your approval at the last session,
were commissioned to represent the Confederacy at certain foreign
courts, have recently been seized by the captain of a United States
vessel-of-war while on board a British mail steamer, while on a voyage
from the neutral Spanish port of Havana to England. The United States
have thus claimed a general jurisdiction over the high seas, and,
entering a British ship sailing under its country’s flag, have violated
the rights of embassy for the most part held sacred even among
barbarians, by seizing our ministers whilst under the protection and
within the dominion of a neutral nation.
“These gentlemen were as much under the jurisdiction of the British
government upon that ship and beneath that flag as if they had been on
its soil, and a claim on the part of the United States to seize them
in the streets of London would have been as well founded as that to
apprehend them where they were taken; had they been malefactors, or
citizens even, of the United States, they could not have been arrested
on board of a British ship or on British soil unless under the express
provisions of treaty, and according to the forms therein provided for
the extradition of criminals.”
This plaintive wail in behalf of Messrs. Mason and Slidell was intended
for European ears. This portion of Mr. Davis’s communication which
has just been quoted is more of a message to the English government
and people than it is to the Confederate congress. It was hoped that
British sympathy would thus be more fully aroused.
Discordant voices were heard, too, about this time from across the
Canadian line. The Toronto Leader denounced the act as “the most
offensive outrage which Brother Jonathan has dared to perpetrate upon
the British flag,” and claimed that immediate reparation should be
demanded by requiring an apology and the liberation of the prisoners.
Another well known Canadian newspaper said as soon as the news of the
capture had been confirmed:[7] “The seizure of Slidell and Mason was
wrong, but it was also one of the most absurd and stupid acts which
history records. These diplomatists were going to Europe to stir
up feeling against the North and secure the acknowledgment of the
Southern Confederacy. In seizing them the American officer did more to
accomplish their errand than anything they could possibly have done
themselves. We have no expectation that the British government will
deal with the matter otherwise than temperately, but the collision
will strengthen the hands of the not uninfluential parties in Britain
who are striving to induce the government to interfere in the American
quarrel. Better have had ten Slidells and Masons in Europe than
permit such a cause of quarrel to arise. We do not know what may be
the character of the captain of the San Jacinto for loyalty, but if
he intended to help the insurgents he could not have gone about the
work better. The American vessels have been vainly chasing the Sumter
from port to port; they have allowed the Bermuda to enter Savannah
and to leave it; they have permitted the Huntsville[8] to reach the
Bermudas, and receive the cargo of the Fingal; they have reserved all
their courage and activity to stop an unarmed neutral vessel on the
seas and take from her two venerable non-combatants. But for the Port
Royal bombardment, the whole American naval service would sink beneath
contempt.
“The extreme anxiety of the Washington government to prevent the
southern diplomatists reaching Europe is a curious proof of weakness
in men who profess to be careless as to the action of foreign powers.
The United States have nothing to fear from Europe, if they go on with
the war vigorously and succeed in the desired object of preserving the
Union, and it is altogether a very small business to hunt a couple of
men over the ocean to prevent them using their tongues to persuade
the shrewd rulers of England and France to do violence to their own
interests by entering upon a great war. It was bad enough to send
four vessels after them when their departure by the Huntsville was
announced, but to run the risk of a war with England for such an
object is an act of mid-summer madness. It will add infinitely to the
strength and dignity of the American government if, without waiting for
remonstrances from Britain, they at once set free the captives and send
them on their road to Europe. It will be right, which is infinitely
better than being expedient, but it will also show that the North has
confidence in the goodness of its cause, and does not fear the tongues
of traitors, well-poised though they may be.”
On November 30, six days after the commissioners had been received
at Fort Warren, Mr. Seward forwarded a dispatch to Minister Adams
at London, in which, after mentioning other matters, the following
language was used: “Since that conversation was held Captain Wilkes,
of the steamer San Jacinto, has boarded a British colonial steamer and
taken from her deck two insurgents who were proceeding to Europe on an
errand of treason against their own country. This is a new incident,
unknown to, and unforeseen, at least in its circumstances, by Lord
Palmerston. It is to be met and disposed of by the two governments,
if possible, in the spirit to which I have adverted. Lord Lyons has
prudently refrained from opening the subject to me, as, I presume,
waiting instructions from home. We have done nothing on the subject
to anticipate the discussion, and we have not furnished you with any
explanations. We adhere to that course now, because we think it more
prudent that the ground taken by the British government should be
first made known to us here, and that the discussion, if there must
be one, shall be had here. It is proper, however, that you should
know one fact in the case, without indicating that we attach much
importance to it, namely, that, in the capture of Messrs. Mason and
Slidell on board a British vessel, Captain Wilkes having acted without
any instructions from the government, the subject is therefore free
from the embarrassment which might have resulted if the act had been
specially directed by us.”
“I trust that the British government will consider the subject in a
friendly temper, and it may expect the best disposition on the part of
this government.”
It will be seen hereafter how important this timely statement of Mr.
Seward’s became in the final settlement of the matter between the two
countries.
AUTHORITIES AND REFERENCES.
1. Congressional Globe: 2d Session 37th Congress, Part I.
2. Diary of War Events, Moore’s Rebellion Record, Vol. VII.
3. Lossing, B. J.: The Civil War in America.
4. Magazine of American History, May, 1886.
5. McPherson, Edward: Political History of the Rebellion.
6. Official Report of the Secretary of the Navy, Dec. 2, 1861.
7. Porter, D. D.: Naval History of the Civil War.
8. Principal Northern and Canadian newspapers during the latter half
of November, 1861.
9. Paris, Comte de: The Civil War in America.
10. Southern Law Review, Vol. VIII.
11. Welles, Gideon: Lincoln and Seward.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] See Welles’s Lincoln and Seward, p. 187.
[2] Welles’s Lincoln and Seward, p. 185.
[3] Congressional Globe, Dec. 2, 1861.
[4] Evening Star, Dec. 9, 1861.
[5] Geo. Sumner in Boston Transcript, Nov. 18, 1861.
[6] Chicago Times, special Washington correspondence, Nov. 21, 1861.
[7] Editorial, Toronto Globe of Nov. 18, 1861.
[8] The Nashville is probably meant.
CHAPTER XII.
THE EFFECT IN ENGLAND.
Immediately after the Trent and San Jacinto separated on the afternoon
of November 8, the purser of the former vessel, thinking doubtless
that it would be quite an honor to himself to be first in reporting
the matter to the British public, addressed a statement to the editor
of the London Times, giving the “particulars of the grievous outrage
committed to-day against the English flag” by the American captain
Wilkes.
Then follows an account of the escape of the southern commissioners
from Charleston in “the little steamer Theodora,” their arrival
at Havana and embarkation on the Trent, where they felt entirely
safe under a neutral flag. The purser then says that on the second
day of the voyage a large steamer was observed ahead in the Bahama
channel; that she was evidently waiting, and first gave notice of her
nationality and intention by firing a round shot across the bows of the
Trent, and at the same moment displaying American colors; that upon a
nearer approach, a large shell was fired across the bows of the English
vessel; that it “passed within a few yards of the ship, bursting about
a hundred yards to leeward.” It is then stated that the Trent stopped;
that a large boat containing between twenty and thirty heavily-armed
men pushed off from the side of the San Jacinto under the command of a
lieutenant, who boarded the Trent and demanded the papers and passenger
list of the vessel, and afterward the surrender of the commissioners,
all of which was indignantly refused; that the lieutenant then walked
to the side of the ship and waved his hand toward the San Jacinto,
after which, “immediately three more heavily-armed boats pushed off
and surrounded the ship, and the party of marines who had come in the
first boat came up and took possession of the quarter-deck,” and that
the envoys were then seized and forcibly put into the boat against the
protest of all the passengers and crew, including Captain Williams of
the Royal Navy.
The account continues as follows: “During the whole of this time the
San Jacinto was about two hundred yards distant from us on the port
beam, her broadside guns, which were all manned, directly bearing
upon us. Any open resistance to such a force was of course hopeless,
although from the loud and repeated plaudits which followed Captain
Williams’s protestation, and which were joined in by every one, without
exception, of the passengers congregated on the quarter-deck, men of
all nations, and from the manifested desire of some to resist to the
last, I have no doubt but that every person would have joined heart and
soul in the struggle had our commander but given the order. Such an
order he could not, under such adverse circumstances, conscientiously
give, and it was therefore considered sufficient that a party of
marines with bayonets fixed should forcibly lay hands on the gentlemen
named. This was done, and the gentlemen retired to their cabins to
arrange some few changes of clothing.”
“A most heart-rending scene now took place between Mr. Slidell,
his eldest daughter, a noble girl devoted to her father, and the
lieutenant. It would require a far more able pen than mine to describe
how, with flashing eyes and quivering lips, she threw herself in the
doorway of the cabin where her father was, resolved to defend him with
her life, till, on the order being given to the marines to advance,
which they did with bayonets pointed at this poor defenseless girl,
her father ended the painful scene by escaping from the cabin by a
window, when he was immediately seized by the marines and hurried to
the boat, calling out to Captain Moir as he left that he held him and
his government responsible for this outrage.
“If further proof were required of the meanness and cowardly bullying
in the line of conduct pursued by the captain of the San Jacinto, I may
remark, first, that on being asked if they would have committed this
outrage if we had been a man-of-war, they replied, ‘certainly not;’
and, secondly, that Captain Wilkes sent an order for Captain Moir to
go on board his ship, and a second for Captain Moir to move the Trent
closer to the San Jacinto. Of course not the slightest notice was taken
of either order, nor did they attempt to enforce them.”
It will be noticed that the paragraphs quoted were specially prepared
to excite the indignation of the British public. The entire account is
very sensational and highly colored. Some statements in it are pure
fictions, if the testimony of the officers who boarded the Trent are at
all worthy of credence.
On November 9, while yet at sea, Commander Williams prepared an
official report of the matter to be submitted to the admiralty as soon
as he arrived in England. This account was substantially the same
as that given by the purser, except that some of the facts are more
distorted, and the number of fictions in it somewhat larger.
The report of Commander Williams and the statement of the purser of
the Trent reached England and were made public on November 27. With
a ministry and parliament composed largely of enemies of the United
States, with nearly all of the rich and influential class unfriendly,
with a press which exhibited only hatred for the North, and continually
advocated the cause of the South, with a large population of merchants,
tradesmen and cotton workers who were complaining on account of the
injuries they sustained from the blockade, and who were anxious
for the government to interfere in the American difficulty, it may
readily be imagined what effect the news of Captain Wilkes’s act
created in England. If it had been reported that the Americans had
deliberately and wantonly captured and burned the Trent and her cargo,
the excitement throughout the country would not have been greater. No
single announcement in modern times has affected the English government
and people as did that of Commander Williams and the purser of the
Trent. With a few notable exceptions among the prominent men, it was
everywhere proclaimed by both press and people that Captain Wilkes’s
act was a violation of international law, an attack on the sacred right
of asylum, a “wanton outrage and an insult” which should not for a
moment be tolerated. The government was called upon to vindicate the
honor of the British flag by instantly exacting a full and complete
reparation, or, in the event of failure to obtain it, war must be
declared against the Federal States of America at once, and such a
castigation administered to the insolent Yankees as would thrice over
atone for the indignity they had dared to offer to England. There was
very little discussion of texts or precedents, or of the legality of
the matter. The offensive and intolerant course which the English
navy had pursued toward all neutral powers during and after the
Napoleonic wars was apparently forgotten, because it was not convenient
to remember it just then. Public meetings denounced the “outrage,”
prominent men condemned it, and the English newspapers with very few
exceptions used their utmost endeavors to stir up the indignation
and the war spirit of the British people. The most violent abuse and
malignant hatred of everything American was exhibited, not only in
the ordinary newspapers, but also in the conservative reviews and
quarterlies. A storm of indignation which has rarely been equaled swept
the British nation from Edinburgh to Dover.
It is not difficult for a government to find a pretext for making war
or parading its military power in the sight of another nation, whenever
it desires to do so. The British government was not slow to act in
this case. Lord Palmerston, its leader, was an enemy of the American
republic, and was easily swayed by the popular feeling and by his own
prejudice.
Preparations for war were begun on a scale which was sufficient to tax
the utmost strength and resources of the United Kingdom. There was
no delay after the reception of the news, but operations were pushed
with a feverish activity both day and night. On November 30 the lords
commissioners of the admiralty were instructed by Lord Russell to
direct Vice-Admiral Sir Alexander Milne to communicate fully with Lord
Lyons at Washington. Earl Russell mentions the recent “act of wanton
violence and outrage,” and says it is necessary to “look to the safety
of her majesty’s possessions in North America,” and that care should
be taken not to place any of the ships in positions “where they may
be surprised or commanded by batteries on land of a superior force.”
Arrangements were also made at once for a large increase in the British
naval force in North American and West Indian waters.
On the same day an official order was issued forbidding the shipment of
any saltpeter until further notice was given. Large quantities of it
had already been placed in lighters at the London custom-house ready
to be loaded on board outgoing ships, but the whole was relanded and
returned into warehouses under the supervision of custom officers.
On December 4, Queen Victoria issued a royal proclamation forbidding
the export of gunpowder, niter, nitrate of soda, brimstone, lead and
fire-arms from all the ports of the United Kingdom. At the great
Woolwich arsenal there was the bustle of extraordinary activity, and
work which was not suspended either for night or Sunday. Enfield
rifles, cannon, and great quantities of ammunition and other warlike
material were being loaded on board the great ship Melbourne for
transportation to Canada. On Sunday, December 1, twenty-five thousand
muskets were conveyed from the Tower and loaded for shipment. Large
quantities of Armstrong and Whitworth cannon were immediately purchased
by the government. Transports of large capacity were needed. The great
steam packet Persia was taken from other service and employed to
transport troops to Canada. The immense iron-clad ship, The Warrior,
the best war vessel in the British navy, was hastily prepared for
service. Unusual activity was noticeable at all of the dock yards. War
vessels were being hastily put into a state of forwardness for real
service.
The Earl of Derby was consulted by the government in regard to the
“American difficulty.” He approved its policy and suggested to
ship-owners that the captains of outward bound ships be instructed to
signal any English ships which they might see that war with America was
probable. This suggestion was strongly approved by underwriters, in
whose imaginations privateers were already at work. No insurance could
be had on American vessels on any terms.
In the stock market, too, a panic prevailed, and American securities
dropped amazingly in view of the war which seemed at hand.
Preparations were also made for placing the military forces upon a war
footing, and it was arranged to increase the army in Canada at once
by an addition of thirty thousand men. Recruiting began with unusual
vigor. The very flower of the British standing army were mustered and
passed in review, after which they embarked for Halifax. Among them
were all of the most noted batteries and regiments, among which were
the guards, to whom was accorded the distinguished honor of taking
part in all important wars. These were the first to start to the seat
of war. They believed that they were going to Charleston to help the
Confederates. The guards played the well known American air, “I am off
to Charleston,” while embarking on their vessels.
Thurlow Weed, who was then in England, says: “I rose early on Friday
morning and went down to St. James’s barracks to see a regiment of
guards take up their line of march for Canada. Nearly fifty years had
elapsed since I had seen ‘British red-coats’ whose muskets were turned
against us. Something of the old feeling--a feeling which I supposed
had died out, began to rise, and, after a few moments of painful
thought, I turned away.”[1]
One of the principal newspapers of London, in an account of the
departure of the transports Adriatic and Parana with troops for Canada,
said: “As the Adriatic moved out of dock, the large shields on her
paddle-boxes emblazoned with the stars and stripes, reminded everybody
of the remarkable coincidence that an American-built steamer, and until
within a few months the property of American owners, should be one of
the first employed in the transport of British troops to the northern
part of the American continent, to operate, probably, against the
country in which she was built.
“On the two vessels leaving the docks, the volunteer band took up a
position on the extreme end of the jetty, and as the Adriatic slowly
moved past, they played the appropriate airs, “I Wish I Was in Dixie,”
and “The British Grenadiers,” followed by, “Cheer, Boys, Cheer,” and
“Should Auld Acquaintance be Forgot,” as the Parana passed, in each
case closing with “God Save the Queen,” after which several parting
rounds of enthusiastic cheers were exchanged between the multitude of
spectators on shore and the gallant fellows on board the vessels.”[2]
A Paris correspondent of one of the principal newspapers of New York
said: “The sudden dispatch of arms and men to Halifax, the outfit of
numerous heavy ships of war, the violent language of the British press
and concurrence of the French press, are events out of proportion to
the nominal cause of them, and indicate a secret design and a foregone
conclusion,” after which the opinion is expressed that the British
government from the beginning “was disposed to aid the rebellion for
the purpose of dissolving the Union.”
The action of the governmental authorities as detailed thus far is
well summarized by an English writer, who says: “The most energetic
preparations were made by the English government to meet the
contingency in case the demand they instantly made for the surrender
of the passengers was not instantly complied with. Troops were
dispatched to Canada with all possible expedition, and that brave and
loyal colony called out its militia and volunteers so as to be ready
to act at a moment’s notice. Our dockyards here resounded with the
din of workmen getting vessels fitted for sea, and there was but one
feeling which animated all classes and parties in the country, and that
was a determination to vindicate our insulted honor, and uphold the
inviolability of the national flag.”[3]
Another English writer says of the situation: “The outrage savored so
much of contemptuous defiance that the national feeling was wounded to
the quick. ‘Bear this, bear all,’ was the prevailing cry, and not an
hour was lost in making preparations for the war which it seemed to
be the object of the Americans to provoke. Among other measures which
showed how thoroughly we were in earnest, troops to the number of eight
thousand were dispatched to Canada.”[4]
The news of the boarding of the Trent by a Federal war steamer and
the forcible removal of the southern commissioners was received at
Liverpool by a private telegram soon after noon on the same day that
the matter first became known in England. The intelligence spread in a
wonderfully rapid manner and caused the greatest excitement among all
classes. The utmost indignation was expressed on ’Change and in a very
brief space of time the following placard was conspicuously posted:
“OUTRAGE ON THE BRITISH FLAG.”
THE SOUTHERN COMMISSIONERS FORCIBLY REMOVED
FROM A BRITISH MAIL STEAMER.
“A public meeting will be held in the cotton sales-room
at 3 o’clock.”
The preceding announcement was sufficient to cause the assembling of
a large crowd in the cotton sales-room promptly at 3 o’clock. Nearly
all of the gentlemen who frequented the exchange were present. The most
remarkable enthusiasm was manifested, and Mr. James Spence was called
to the chair.
The following resolution was offered: “That this meeting, having heard
with indignation that an American Federal ship of war has forcibly
taken from a British mail steamer certain passengers, who were
proceeding peaceably under the shelter of our flag from one neutral
port to another, do earnestly call upon the government to assert the
dignity of the British flag by requiring prompt reparation for this
outrage.” The resolution having been read, the meeting demonstrated
its concurrence with the views contained in it by long-continued and
uproarious applause. After order had been partially restored the
chairman proceeded to discuss the resolution. He said that “when the
news of the outrage reached this town, the feeling created was one of
surprise, mingled with indignation. He remarked that we had all heard
of the sacred dignity of the American flag. That dignity was a means by
which the persons engaged in the nefarious slave trade could at once
protect themselves by hoisting the American flag, which fully enabled
them to resist any attempt to search such vessel. He trusted it would
not be allowed that men prosecuting so nefarious a trade should be
protected, and that men peaceably proceeding on their own affairs,
under the protection of our flag, might be forcibly taken out of our
ships. [Cheers.] On the contrary, he believed that the people of this
country would not by any means permit such an outrage. [Cheers.] He
said, in having agreed to take the chair on this occasion, he did so
without reluctance or regret; he felt deeply that he only expressed the
feeling, not merely of the meeting, but of the community in general,
when he said it was the duty of the people to press on the government
the imperative necessity of vindicating the honor and dignity of the
British name and flag.” [Loud and continued cheering.][5]
Other speakers who desired to present a slightly more conservative
view of the matter were greeted with the greatest manifestations of
displeasure, the last one being compelled to desist from the attempt to
address the meeting. The resolution after being slightly modified was
adopted.
While all England was in a state of excitement over the seizure a great
meeting was held at Dublin, Ireland. The “Young O’Donoughue,” a member
of one of the most ancient families of his native country, a brilliant
and powerful young orator, addressed the people. Standing before a
crowd of probably five thousand people, he boldly declared that if
England engaged in a war with the United States, Ireland would be found
on the side of America--a statement which the vast assemblage cheered
with tremendous enthusiasm.
The tone of the British press was, with few exceptions, quite
vindictive. Captain Wilkes received much abuse. Some very absurd
threats were made, and much bluster was indulged in.
The London Times in discussing the matter was unwilling to admit
that similar British precedents were entitled to be considered in
justification of the act of Captain Wilkes. The comment was as
follows: “But it must be remembered that these decisions were given
under circumstances very different from those which now occur. Steamers
in those days did not exist, and mail vessels carrying letters wherein
all of the nations of the world have immediate interests were unknown.
We were fighting for existence, and we did in those days what we should
neither do nor allow others to do, nor expect ourselves to be allowed
to do in these days.”[6] This journal was the accredited exponent
of British opinion at that time so far as the government and ruling
classes were concerned. The following tirade of coarse abuse of Captain
Wilkes and Americans generally graced the columns of the Times on one
occasion while the matter of difference between the two nations was yet
unsettled: “He is unfortunately but too faithful a type of the people
in whose foul mission he is engaged. He is an ideal Yankee. Swagger
and ferocity, built on a foundation of vulgarity and cowardice--these
are his characteristics, and these are the most prominent marks by
which his countrymen, generally speaking, are known all over the
world. To bully the weak, to triumph over the helpless, to trample on
every law of country and custom, willfully to violate all the most
sacred interests of human nature, to defy as long as danger does not
appear, and, as soon as real peril shows itself, to sneak aside and
run away--these are the virtues of the race which presumes to announce
itself as the leader of civilization and the prophet of human progress
in these latter days. By Captain Wilkes let the Yankee breed be judged.”
The Saturday Review, the special organ of the aristocratic classes,
said: “The American government is in the position of the rude boor,
conscious of infinite powers of annoyance, destitute alike of scruples
and of shame, recognizing only the arbitration of the strong arm, which
repudiates the appeal to codes, and presuming, not without reason, that
more scrupulous states will avoid or defer such an arbitration as long
as they can.”
The London Punch published a cartoon about the first of December,
in which America is represented by a little blustering slave-driver
bearing the American flag. England appears as a large British sailor,
who faces the little American and says: “You do what’s right, my
son, or I’ll blow you out of the water.” The big Briton also says to
a very ungainly American officer who appears: “Now mind you sir, no
shuffling, an ample apology, or I will put the matter into the hands of
my lawyers, Messrs. Whitworth and Armstrong.” These individuals were
manufacturers of cannon which the government was buying at that time
for shipment to Canada.
The London Herald was especially bitter in its attacks on President
Lincoln and Mr. Seward, and in its condemnation of Captain Wilkes’s
act. In one of its issues this newspaper said editorially: “Mr.
Seward’s want of common sense, reticence and principle, have long
been notorious to Americans, and recent circumstances have directed
to him an amount of English attention which has made him equally well
understood and despised in this country. Unhappily, until yesterday,
we had not been able fully to appreciate the extent and depth of his
moral and mental worthlessness. We knew that he had proposed to ‘annex’
Canada, but the idea was to us who know our strength and the weakness
of the United States so utterly ludicrous that we did not, and could
not, appreciate the folly and desperate wickedness of the man who could
put it forward as a serious proposal. Since then Mr. Seward has done
everything in his power to insult Great Britain. He has encouraged
the piratical seizure of our ships; he has ordered the illegal arrest
of British subjects; he has directed his envoys at foreign courts to
resist and menace us.
“Unless Mr. Seward be simply out of his senses with rage, fear and
helplessness--unless he be intoxicated with his own boastfulness till
he believes his own statements--he must be aware that England can,
before the present month is passed, destroy or take possession of every
seaport in the northern states, raise the blockade of the southern
coast and sweep the seas clear of the Federal flag. And yet with this
knowledge, he has ventured on us an outrage which ought to be avenged
by the immediate appearance of a British fleet in the Chesapeake,
bringing the alternative of instant reparation or war.
“The chastisement which the offending government will receive will,
we trust, be severe enough, without the stimulus of this additional
atrocity to rouse the indignation of England into fury, and spur the
timidity of her majesty’s cabinet into action. We are glad to know that
the agent in charge of the mails warned the offenders in a tone which
suited the occasion and the rank he held.”
The hope was then expressed that Commander William’s protest would
“be speedily enforced by the still sterner protest of a British fleet,
conveying even to Mr. Seward’s dull conscience and Mr. Lincoln’s
bewildered brain a proper sense of the consequences which follow the
perpetration on board a British vessel” of such a terrible outrage as
the Americans had lately been guilty of committing. The last paragraph
read as follows: “What we have to do is sufficiently clear. It is the
duty of our government to demand the immediate return of the gentlemen
stolen from under our flag, in honorable guise, together with an ample
apology for a lawless act of piratical aggression, and to prepare for
the rejection of such a demand by dispatching forthwith to the American
coast such a naval force as may insure the total destruction of the
Federal navy, and the instant blockade of all of the chief northern
ports, if due satisfaction be not given without delay.”
During the entire period of excitement which was caused in England
by the seizure of the commissioners, the concentrated wrath of the
British press and public was poured upon the devoted head of Mr.
Seward. His bold stand against any recognition being extended to the
Confederates by England, and his recommendation that the coasts and
lake frontiers of the United States be put into a condition to resist
foreign aggression, caused all Englishmen who sympathized with the
South to hate him. It was said in England, and continually repeated
and emphasized by the British press, that Mr. Seward and the Federal
government at Washington proposed to annex Canada to the United States;
that a pretext was wanted for a quarrel and a war with Great Britain;
and that the boarding of the Trent and seizure of the commissioners
was a deliberate insult in pursuance of the secretary of state’s
design to provoke a rupture between the two countries. Universal and
widespread circulation was also given to a silly story to the effect
that while the Prince of Wales was in the United States, Governor
Morgan had given a dinner party to the royal guest, at which Mr.
Seward and the Duke of Newcastle were both present, when the former
said to the duke: “I expect soon to hold a very high office here in
my own country; it will then become my duty to insult England, and I
mean to do so.” There can be no doubt but that the Duke of Newcastle
told such a silly story, and it is highly probable that a belief in
its truthfulness strongly influenced the government of England in the
active and hasty preparations for war.[7]
Mr. Thurlow Weed, who had been previously sent to England to influence
public opinion there in favor of the North, wrote to Mr. Seward about
the matter. Mr. Seward was greatly surprised, and replied that the
story was so extremely absurd that to give it sufficient notice to deny
it would be almost a sacrifice of personal dignity on his own part.
The London Times having expressed at one time a “yearning” in England
after American views upon the existing complication between the two
countries, Mr. Weed ventured to supply the desired information in
a letter which he immediately contributed to that journal. In this
letter he entered a general denial of the assertion that the Federal
government desired a rupture with England, and did what he could to
undeceive the British public concerning the Seward-Newcastle story.
Mr. Adams was referred to for a true reflex of American sympathies.
The opinion was expressed that England had no real grievance of any
substantial nature against the United States, as the boundary disputes
and other questions of importance had been satisfactorily settled. The
magnificent reception of the Prince of Wales in the United States, and
the high estimation in which Americans held the Queen, also the fact
that both nations were of kindred origin, and spoke the same language,
were all dwelt upon. Gen. Scott’s recent letter on the situation
contributed to the Paris press was mentioned.
Mr. Weed said that he knew nothing of the proposed course of the
British government, but he expressed the opinion that a peremptory
demand for the release of the envoys would be met by as peremptory a
refusal, since in temper and pride Americans were as unreasoning as the
bad example of their mother country could make them. He did not believe
that Mason and Slidell were worth a war, and hoped the matter would be
considered calmly and with due deliberation.
The same issue of the Times which contained Mr. Weed’s letter
accompanied it with a leader replying to his views and asserting the
English position. It was held that “the present prime minister of the
Northern States of America” had long possessed “a deliberate and long
cherished intention” to do England a wrong. The proofs were ample,
being the Newcastle incident, the expressed wish of Mr. Seward to
annex Canada, his circular to the governors of the northern states,
and lastly the seizure of the commissioners on board an English
ship. This was sufficient evidence “that upon his ability to involve
the United States in a war with England, Mr. Seward has staked his
official, and, most probably, also his political existence, and that
whatever may be the advantage to America of a war with this country, to
him it has become an article of the very first necessity.” Mr. Seward
was then abused for designing so great an evil. Exception was taken to
each point made by Mr. Weed, and the leader closed with the following
paragraph: “But her forbearance (that of America) will never be tried.
We can, we think, convey to Mr. Thurlow Weed the sentiments of every
Englishman on this painful subject. We do not ask from America courtesy
or affection, respect for our Queen or regard for our Prince. These
things are hers to give or withhold. We do not even ask that amount
of fair treatment which we are in the habit of receiving from other
nations. We have long ago made up our minds to dispense with that; but
we do demand that she abstain from actual outrage, or that, if it is
committed, she shall make reasonable reparation. If she will do this,
it is well; if not, the alternative will not come in the desired form
of protracted negotiations.”
When the news of the seizure of the southern commissioners was received
in Europe, General Winfield Scott was in Paris. It was his intention to
spend the winter in southern Europe. The storm which the news created
in England extended in a less degree to France. The newspapers of Paris
condemned the act. It was fortunate, perhaps, that General Scott was
in the French capital, for he, being one of the most distinguished of
Americans at that time, was best able to command a hearing in England
and France. He immediately addressed a letter to the Paris press giving
his views of the situation, which he comprehended with the greatest
clearness. He expressed the opinion that the seizure could not have
been authorized from Washington, and that the matter was capable of
being amicably adjusted.
The following paragraphs taken from the general’s letter very nearly
indicate grounds which Mr. Seward assumed afterward in the settlement
of the case.
“If, under the circumstances, England should deem it her duty in the
interest of civilization to insist upon the restoration of the men
taken from under the protection of her flag, it will be, without doubt,
that the law of nations in regard to the rights of neutrals, which she
has taken a leading part in establishing, requires revision.”
“If England is disposed to do her part in stripping war of half its
horrors by accepting the policy long and persistently urged upon her
by our government, and commended by every principle of justice and
humanity, she will find no ground, in the visit of the Trent, for
controversy with our government.”
“I am sure that the president and people of the United States would be
but too happy to let these men go free, unnatural and unpardonable as
their offenses have been, if by it they could emancipate the commerce
of the world.”
A few days later the general became alarmed at the threatening state
of affairs and hastily embarked for the United States, saying that
if there was to be a war with England, perhaps he could be of some
service to his country. In the sudden departure of General Scott, the
London press found additional evidence of feelings in America hostile
to England, as, they said, he had gone home in obedience to a hasty
summons from Washington. This was not true. He returned because he
regarded it as his duty to do so.
While the excitement was so great in England, Commander Williams
suddenly became an individual of national prominence. His “protest”
against the seizure of the commissioners was everywhere applauded.
Much was made of him by the press and by various organizations. On
December 12 a public dinner was given to him by the Royal Western Yacht
Club of England. That he had evidently lost his head is apparent from
the perusal of the “braggadocio” speech made upon that occasion. He
gave such an account of the seizure of the envoys as would suit the
occasion and make a hero of himself. The following verbatim extract is
illustrative:
“Now, gentlemen, I have only one more subject that I know of on which
to speak--the circumstances attending the gallant Federal marines
rushing with the points of their bayonets at Miss Slidell. [Hear,
hear.] It was at this point that she screamed, for her father snatched
himself away from her--I do not mean snatched himself rudely, but
he snatched himself away from her to break the window of his cabin,
through which he thrust his body out. But the hole was so small that I
hardly thought it would admit the circumference of his waist. It was
then the lady screamed. I am charged by Mr. Fairfax ‘that my manner
was so violent that he was compelled to request Captain Moir to
remove me.’ [Nonsense.] But when the marines rushed on at the point of
their bayonets--and I believe it is not necessary that I should make
a solemn asseveration that it is true--[No, no]--when they rushed on
at the point of the bayonet, I had just time to put my body between
their bayonets and Miss Slidell--[oh!]--and I said to them, and if
Henry of Exeter were here I would ask him for his absolution for
it--[laughter]--I said to them, ‘Back, you d-- cowardly poltroons.’”
This ridiculous speech was believed, applauded and given a wide
circulation.
The chances of an English war with the United States caused great
excitement in Canada, and there was a general call to arms at once. The
militia were called out and volunteers were everywhere drilled with the
greatest exactness and constancy. Extra time was taken from business
for military duties, and one Canadian journal estimated that an army
of two hundred thousand men could easily be put into the field. Bodies
of regular troops were in motion from one part of the provinces to
another. Old fortifications were carefully inspected and new ones begun
along the whole Canadian frontier. Toronto and other exposed cities
were carefully looked after, and, although it was in the midst of a
severe Canadian winter, preparations were made everywhere for immediate
war.[8]
There was in England from the beginning a very feeble undercurrent of
sentiment opposed to the well-nigh universal view of the case, just
as in America the feeling of congratulation was not quite common to
every one. John Bright, than whom the United States never had a truer
or more steadfast friend, took a very conservative view of the case.
At a public dinner given at Rochdale on December 4, Mr. Bright made
a speech in which he said that he did not indorse the seizure of the
southern commissioners, but believed that it was an unauthorized act
for which sufficient reparation would be made. He thought that the
United States had evinced a great desire to be guided by wise and
moderate counsels in the construction of cases under the maritime law.
It had been asserted, Mr. Bright said, that this was one of a series of
acts showing ill-will on the part of the North, but he believed that
irritating accidents were unavoidable in a struggle like the present
one and advised his countrymen to be calm. “Let us remember,” said
he, “how we were dragged into the Russian war--we drifted into it. It
cost a hundred million pounds. It cost the lives of forty thousand
Englishmen; it injured trade; it doubled the armies of Europe, and it
did not accomplish a single thing that was promised.”
He then reminded the meeting that large numbers of English people had
recently emigrated to the Northern States, and that people bound by
such close ties could only be involved in war by misrepresentation, and
the most gross and wicked calumny. In conclusion Mr. Bright said he
prayed that in future it might not be said by the millions of freemen
in the North that in their darkest hour of need the English people,
from whom they sprung, had looked on with icy coldness on the trials
and sufferings of their terrible struggle.
There was one London newspaper which also dissented from the prevailing
view of the case. After a careful review of the whole matter, on the
first day after the news was received, the editor said he “could not
understand the fairness of excluding the Unionists from such an obvious
resort of belligerent power.”
“It would be asking too much that they should stand by and make no
effort to prevent ships conveying to and fro persons and papers on the
enemy’s service. It is at any rate to be desired that questions of this
sort should be discussed without heat and decided without haste.”[9]
Two days later the same journal said: “Our readers know that our
opinion of the affair of the Trent has not been in accordance with
that of the law officers of the crown. That opinion is unchanged.
We believe that, interpreting the code of international law in the
spirit in which that ill-digested code is laid down, Captain Wilkes
was justified in taking possession of Messrs. Mason and Slidell. We
have not, however, been so much concerned to establish that point as
to deprecate sudden and passionate action, which might lead to the
most serious complications, and we feel the greatest confidence that
our government, actuated as it is by a spirit of moderation, will be
met in a like spirit of calmness, moderation, and good sense by the
government of the United States. It would indeed be a disgrace to the
boasted civilization of the nineteenth century, if, in a disputed point
of international law, there were no other mode of obtaining a decision
than by a brutal resort to arms.”[10]
These opinions, however, were of no avail. They were given so little
consideration either by the people or the government of Great Britain
that they might just as well never have been uttered. England proposed
to settle the matter upon her own terms and without discussion, delay,
or consideration of any views but those of herself.
AUTHORITIES AND REFERENCES.
1. British Annual Register, 1861.
2. Lossing, B. J.: The Civil War in America.
3. Magazine of American History, May, 1886.
4. Moore’s Rebellion Record: Diary, and Vol. III, Doc. 139.
5. Martin, Theodore: Life of the Prince Consort.
6. Paris, Comte de: The Civil War in America.
7. Principal London newspapers, the Times, Herald, Star, and Saturday
Review, Nov. 28-30, 1861, also first weeks of December, 1861.
8. Victor, O. J.: History of the Southern Rebellion.
9. Weed, Thurlow; Life of, Vol. II.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Life of Thurlow Weed, Vol. II, p. 368.
[2] London Times, Dec. 19, 1861.
[3] Annual Register of History, 1861, p. 254.
[4] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Vol. V, p. 347.
[5] London Times, November 28, 1861.
[6] London Times, Nov. 28, 1861.
[7] See Geo. Peabody’s letter to Thurlow Weed. Memoir of Weed, p. 365.
[8] See New York Herald’s account, Dec. 20, 1861.
[9] London Star, November 30, 1861.
[10] Editorial London Star, November 28, 1861.
CHAPTER XIII.
THE BRITISH DEMAND.
It was well understood in England that Messrs. Mason and Slidell had
been commissioned to represent the Confederacy at London and Paris
respectively. The difficulties incident to their departure from a
blockaded port and the anxiety of the Federal government to prevent the
success of their mission were also well known.
An English writer, after giving a brief account of the escape of
the commissioners in a blockade-runner, says: “It was correctly
assumed that they would embark at Havana on the Trent, a West Indian
mail steamer, and travel in her to Europe; it was believed that the
government of the United States had issued orders for intercepting the
Trent and for capturing the envoys; and it was noticed that a Federal
man-of-war had arrived at Falmouth and after coaling had proceeded to
Southampton. Lord Russell laid these facts before the law officers, and
was advised that a United States man-of-war falling in with a British
mail steamer would have the right to board her, open her mail bags,
examine their contents, and, if the steamer should prove liable to
confiscation for carrying dispatches from the enemy, put a prize crew
on board and carry her to a port of the United States for adjudication.
In that case the law officers thought she might, and in their opinion
she ought to, disembark the passengers on the mail steamer at some
convenient port. But they added ‘she would have no right to remove
Messrs. Mason and Slidell and carry them off as prisoners, leaving the
ship to pursue her voyage.’ A few days before the law officers gave
this opinion, the San Jacinto, an American war steamer, intercepted the
Trent and did the very thing which the law officers had advised she had
no right to do.”[1]
As soon as Commander Williams landed in England he was sent to London
in hot haste on a special train in order to report the circumstances
to the government without any delay. After arriving there he spent the
remainder of that day and part of the night at the British foreign
office making an official report to Premier Palmerston and the lords
commissioners of the admiralty.
The facts as reported by Commander Williams were immediately submitted
to the crown law officers, who, after a brief consideration of the
matter, reported that the seizure of the commissioners was entirely
illegal and not sanctioned by the law of nations.[2]
The case was then considered by the cabinet, and, on November 29, only
two days after the news of the boarding of the Trent and seizure of
the envoys had reached England, Lord Palmerston prepared a note to
the queen in which he formulated a statement of a demand to be made at
once upon the American government. He wrote to her majesty as follows:
“The general outline and tenor which appeared to meet the opinions of
the cabinet would be, that the Washington government should be told
that what has been done is a violation of international law and of the
rights of Great Britain, and that your majesty’s government trust that
the act will be disavowed and the prisoners set free and restored to
British protection, and that Lord Lyons should be instructed that, if
this demand is refused, he should retire from the United States.”[3]
A copy of the proposed dispatch to Lord Lyons was also forwarded to
her majesty, who, with Prince Albert, carefully examined it. Both were
profoundly impressed by the fact that the communication indicated a
crisis in the affairs of the two countries and that a speedy rupture
and war were not improbable. Illness and the serious character of this
new political question made it impossible for the prince to sleep
during the following night. Upon getting up, although scarcely able
to hold a pen while writing, he prepared a memorandum of the changes
which her majesty desired to have made in the dispatch to America.
The queen preferred that language should be used which was less harsh
and offensive in character than that contained in the first draft
of the note to the American government. In its uncorrected form the
draft of the note not only charged the violation of international law
but added an accusation of “wanton insult,” although the belief was
asserted that it was not intentional. Prince Albert’s memorandum,
corrected with the queen’s own hand, was returned, and the dispatch
which was subsequently forwarded to Lord Lyons shows that her majesty’s
suggestions were fully observed. This was the prince’s last political
writing. His illness grew worse and he died before the communication
which he and the queen had aided in preparing was answered by the
American government.
The prince’s memorandum, as corrected by the queen and returned by her
to the ministry, was as follows: “The queen returns these important
drafts which upon the whole she approves, but she can not help
feeling that the main draft--that for communication to the American
government--is somewhat meagre. She would have liked to have seen
the expression of a hope that the American captain did not act under
instructions, or, if he did that he misapprehended--that the United
States government must be fully aware that the British government
could not allow its flag to be insulted and the security of its mail
communications to be placed in jeopardy, and her majesty’s government
are unwilling to believe that the United States government intended
wantonly to put an insult upon this country, and to add to their many
distressing complications by forcing a question of dispute upon us; and
that we are, therefore, glad to believe that upon a full consideration
of the circumstances of the undoubted breach of international law
committed, they would spontaneously offer such redress as alone
would satisfy this country, viz., the restoration of the unfortunate
passengers and a suitable apology.”[4]
Having received this memorandum from the queen, Earl Russell
immediately prepared dispatches for Lord Lyons at Washington
instructing his lordship to make certain demands of the American
government and ordering him what to do in case they were refused. The
text of the one containing the demands to be made was as follows:
“FOREIGN OFFICE, Nov. 30, 1861.
“MY LORD--Intelligence of a very grave nature has reached her
majesty’s government.
“This intelligence was conveyed officially to the knowledge of
the admiralty by Commander Williams, agent for mails on board the
contract steamer Trent.
“It appears from the letter of Commander Williams, dated ‘Royal Mail
Contract Packet Trent, at sea, November 9,’ that the Trent left
Havana on the 7th instant, with her majesty’s mails for England,
having on board numerous passengers. Commander Williams states that
shortly after noon, on the 8th, a steamer having the appearance of a
man-of-war, but not showing colors, was observed ahead. On nearing
her, at 1:15 P. M., she fired a round shot from her pivot-gun across
the bows of the Trent and showed American colors. While the Trent was
approaching her slowly, the American vessel discharged a shell across
the bows of the Trent exploding half a cable’s length ahead of her.
The Trent then stopped, and an officer with a large armed guard of
marines boarded her. The officer demanded a list of the passengers,
and, compliance with this demand being refused, the officer said he
had orders to arrest Messrs. Mason, Slidell, McFarland and Eustis,
and that he had sure information of their being passengers in the
Trent. While some parley was going on upon this matter, Mr. Slidell
stepped forward and told the American officer that the four persons
he had named were then standing before him. The commander of the
Trent and Commander Williams protested against the act of taking
by force out of the Trent these four passengers, then under the
protection of the British flag. But the San Jacinto was at that
time only two hundred yards from the Trent, her ship’s company at
quarters, her ports open and tompions out. Resistance was therefore
out of the question and the four gentlemen before named were forcibly
taken out of the ship. A further demand was made that the commander
of the Trent should proceed on board the San Jacinto, but he said he
would not go unless forcibly compelled likewise, and this demand was
not insisted upon.
“It thus appears that certain individuals have been forcibly taken
from on board a British vessel, the ship of a neutral power, while
such vessel was pursuing a lawful and innocent voyage--an act of
violence which was an affront to the British flag and a violation of
international law.
“Her majesty’s government, bearing in mind the friendly relations
which have long subsisted between Great Britain and the United
States, are willing to believe that the United States naval officer
who committed the aggression was not acting in compliance with any
authority from his government, or that if he conceived himself to
be so authorized he greatly misunderstood the instructions he had
received. For the government of the United States must be fully aware
that the British government could not allow such an affront to the
national honor to pass without full reparation, and her majesty’s
government are unwilling to believe that it could be the deliberate
intention of the government of the United States unnecessarily to
force into discussion between the two governments a question of so
grave a character, and with regard to which the whole British nation
would be sure to entertain such unanimity of feeling.
“Her majesty’s government, therefore, trust that when this matter
shall have been brought under the consideration of the government
of the United States that government will, of its own accord, offer
to the British government such redress as alone could satisfy the
British nation, namely, the liberation of the four gentlemen and
their delivery to your lordship, in order that they may again be
placed under British protection, and a suitable apology for the
aggression which has been committed.
“Should these terms not be offered by Mr. Seward, you will propose
them to him.
“You are at liberty to read this dispatch to the secretary of state,
and, if he shall desire it, you will give him a copy of it.
I am, etc., RUSSELL.”
It will be noticed that this communication is in all respects a model
of brevity, precision and clearness. The matter to be considered
is directly approached and all facts of whatever kind that are not
absolutely necessary to his lordship’s view of the case are omitted.
The citizenship of the captured persons is not even hinted at, nor is
anything said about the nature of their mission. No use is made of the
term “confederate” or “rebel.” There is no discussion of the principles
of international law bearing upon the case, no reference to texts or
precedents, no statement of the rights of belligerents among themselves
or their relations to neutral nations. The fact that a great civil war
was then raging in the United States, and that the hostile sections of
the country were then in belligerent attitudes toward each other is
nowhere mentioned in the paper. It is denuded of almost every statement
that one would expect to find in such a diplomatic communication.
His lordship contents himself with a statement of the main facts in
Commander Williams’s official report, after which he presents simply
the naked idea of four individuals having been forcibly taken from a
British ship which was pursuing a lawful and innocent voyage from one
neutral port to another, on the high seas and not within the municipal
jurisdiction of the United States. The simple act of doing this
constitutes a violation of the law of nations, and is “an affront to
the British flag.” The only measure of redress which will atone for the
act is then dictated by Lord Russell, and that is the complete undoing
of Captain Wilkes’s act by liberating “the four gentlemen,” delivering
them to Lord Lyons so that they might be placed again under British
protection, and apologizing for what had been done.
On the same day that the foregoing dispatch was prepared, Earl Russell
also addressed a second communication to Lord Lyons. It was a private
letter in which the intentions of the British government could be
easily read between the lines. It meant either reparation or an
alternative of a very serious character. The following is the body of
the letter: “In my previous dispatch of this date I have instructed you
by command of her majesty, to make certain demands of the government
of the United States.
“Should Mr. Seward ask for delay in order that this grave and painful
matter should be deliberately considered, you will consent to a delay
not exceeding seven days. If, at the end of that time, no answer is
given, or if any other answer is given except that of a compliance with
the demands of her majesty’s government, your lordship is instructed
to leave Washington with all the members of your legation and repair
immediately to London. If, however, you should be of the opinion that
the requirements of her majesty’s government are substantially complied
with, you may report the facts to her majesty’s government for their
consideration and remain at your post until you receive further orders.
“You will communicate with Vice-Admiral Sir A. Milne immediately upon
receiving the answer of the American government, and you will send him
a copy of that answer, together with such observations as you may think
fit to make.
“You will also give all the information in your power to the governors
of Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Jamaica, Bermuda and such other
of her majesty’s possessions as may be within your reach.”
The indecent haste and manifest unfairness of the whole proceeding,
as well as the bombast and implied threats toward the United States
contained in the private note, seem to have slightly impressed even
the Earl Russell, for on the same day he addressed a second private
note to Lord Lyons as follows: “My wish would be that at your first
interview with Mr. Seward you should not take my dispatch with you, but
should prepare him for it and ask him to settle it with the president
and cabinet what course they will pursue. The next time you should
bring my dispatch and read it to him fully. If he asks what will be
the consequence of his refusing compliance I think you should say that
you wish to leave him and the president quite free to take their own
course, and that you desire to abstain from anything like menace.”
This last diplomatic note clearly reveals the motives and policy of the
British government in the whole proceeding. It was publicly to browbeat
and menace the United States by a parade of their military power and
a threat of war, and, at the same time, privately to pave the way for
getting out of the difficulty without a resort to arms.
The messenger of the British government arrived in Washington and
delivered Earl Russell’s dispatches to Lord Lyons on December 18.
On the afternoon of the 19th, in accordance with his instructions,
his lordship waited on Mr. Seward at the department of state and
acquainted him in general terms with the nature of Earl Russell’s
dispatch demanding reparation, adding at the same time that he hoped
the government of the United States would of its own accord offer the
desired reparation, and that it was to facilitate such an arrangement
that he had come without any sort of written demand.
Mr. Seward received this communication seriously but without
manifesting dissatisfaction. He then made some inquiries concerning
the exact character of the dispatch and requested that he be given
until the next day to consider the matter and to communicate with the
president. On the day after, he said that he would be prepared to give
an opinion concerning the matters presented to him at that interview.
When Lord Lyons made his next call upon Mr. Seward he brought with
him, and formally read to the secretary, the dispatch containing Earl
Russell’s demand.
Only seven days’ grace were allowed from the time when the matter was
first presented. Two of these had now gone, and if the demand were
complied with, it must be done with promptness, otherwise the doors of
the British legation would be closed and diplomatic relations between
the two countries suspended.
AUTHORITIES AND REFERENCES.
1. British Annual Register, 1861.
2. Martin, Theodore: Life of the Prince Consort, Vol. V.
3. McPherson, Edward: Political History of the Rebellion.
4. Nicolay and Hay: Life of Lincoln.
5. Southern Law Review, Vol. VIII.
6. Walpole, Spencer: Life of Lord John Russell.
7. The Union and Confederate Navies, official records of, Series I,
Vol. I.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Spencer Walpole’s Life of John Russell, Vol. II, pp. 344-5.
[2] The authority for this statement is a letter from the Rt. Hon. Earl
of Kimberly, her majesty’s secretary for foreign affairs, in response
to an inquiry addressed to him by the author.
[3] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Vol. V, p. 420.
[4] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Vol. V, p. 422.
CHAPTER XIV.
CONSIDERATION OF THE BRITISH DEMAND IN AMERICA.
Before the middle of December, news of the intense excitement which
prevailed in England reached the United States. About this time the New
York Tribune said: “England is almost beside herself, is the tenor of
the latest and most trustworthy private letters. They say that passion
has swept away reason in a manner to an extent unknown since 1831, and
that the national sympathy with the South developed by recent events
is startling.” It having been suggested that the president submit a
proposal to settle the matter by arbitration, the New York Journal of
Commerce said that if only an adjudication by a court of admiralty were
desired by the English government, it “could be easily accommodated
by a return of the prisoners on board of the Trent at the point of
capture, and then Captain Wilkes could fire a gun across her bow and
bring her into port according to law.”
On December the 18th, the messenger of the British government, who had
been sent from London with dispatches from his government relative to
the affair, reached Washington and reported to Lord Lyons. The nature
of the messages immediately became known by some means, and the entire
North was excited anew by the prospect of a double war, but still there
was a popular belief that the prisoners would not be surrendered, since
there appeared to be no reason for a reversal of the almost universal
verdict given at the time of the capture.
The momentous question everywhere was, “Will the government at
Washington concede the British demand and give up the men?” Everybody
wondered whether the angry growl of the British lion would have a
sensible effect upon Mr. Lincoln and the administration. “The press
took up the exciting theme, and, as usual, differed widely as to
the course the government should adopt. Meanwhile the keen-sighted
and adventurous began to talk of and to take steps toward the
preparation of cruisers to prey upon the shipping of England, and an
army of volunteers to meet the attack of the British army expected at
Canada was on the _tapis_. Stocks went down at home and abroad as the
warlike feeling in both countries went up, and to the public, war, for
a while, seemed imminent.”[1]
It was rumored that the prisoners would be given up by the
administration. Among those that denied it was the New York Herald,
which said it was only a “silly rumor” and that there “was not the
slightest truth in the report.”
The “silly rumor,” however, speedily became a matter of seriousness,
and, although not confirmed, it was universally believed, and was
discussed by the press and the people of the North. Public opinion
was everywhere strongly opposed to the course of action which rumor
said would be pursued by the government. Such a proceeding, it was
said, would be degrading to the nation, and was too humiliating to
be endured. The right of a nation to deal as it wishes with its own
citizens who are seeking to compass its destruction was confidently
affirmed, and, although the case seemed a desperate one in view of the
consequences which were almost certain to result from a refusal to
accede to the British demand, there was a strong sentiment in favor of
accepting what appeared to be the only alternative that remained to
the American people, namely, to engage in another war with England.
This opinion found favor with many public men, including prominent
congressmen.
While this rumor was being discussed by the press and the public,
Senator John P. Hale, of New Hampshire, made a speech in the United
States senate concerning the matter. After saying that the measure
involved more of good or evil to the country than anything that had
ever occurred before, he continued as follows: “To my mind a more fatal
act could not mark the history of this country--an act that would
surrender at once to the arbitrary demand of Great Britain all that
was won in the revolution, reduce us to the position of a second rate
power, and make us the vassal of Great Britain. I would go as far as
any reasonable man would go for peace, but not further. I would not
be unwilling to submit this subject to the arbitration of any of the
great powers of Europe, but I would not submit to the arbitrary, the
absolute demand of Great Britain, to surrender these men, and humble
our flag even to escape from a war with Great Britain. No man would
make more honorable concessions than I would to preserve the peace, but
sometimes peace is less honorable and more calamitous than war. The
administration which is now in power ought to know what the feeling of
the country is.”
Mr. Hale then referred to a conversation which he had just had with
Senator Lane, of Indiana, who had said that the state of Indiana had
then sixty thousand men in the field, and that she would double that
number in sixty days if a war with Great Britain were brought about.
“I have seen many gentlemen,” continued Mr. Hale, “and I have seen
none, not a man can be found, who is in favor of this surrender, for it
would humiliate us in the eyes of the world, irritate our own people
and subject us to their indignant scorn. If we are to have war with
Great Britain, it will not be because we refuse to surrender Messrs.
Mason and Slidell; that is a mere pretense. If war shall come it will
be because Great Britain has determined to force war upon us. They
would humiliate us first and fight us afterwards. If we are to be
humiliated I prefer to take it after a war, and not before. It is true,
war would be a sacrifice to the people. I think I see its horrors, its
disasters, its carnage, its blood, and its desolation, but, sir, let
war come; let your cities be battered down, your armies be scattered,
your fields barren, to preserve untarnished the national honor; a
regenerating spirit among your people will restore your armies, and
rebuild your cities and make fruitful your fields. * * * I pray that
this administration will not surrender our national honor. I tell them
that hundreds and thousands will rush to the battlefield, and bare
their breasts to its perils rather than submit to degradation.
* * * * *
“But if we are to have war--I do not say that we shall--it will not
be without its advantages. It will be a war that can not be carried
on without fighting, and if we only understand our true position, we
can proclaim to every man who speaks the English language on God’s
footstool, the cause for which we are fighting; and this appeal will
reach the hearts of millions of Englishmen, Irishmen and Frenchmen.
“We have heard, Mr. President, some fears expressed that Louis Napoleon
is taking sides with England, and that we are to contend with the
combined energies of both France and England. I do not believe it. I
believe if Louis Napoleon harbors one single sentiment, if his action
is guided by one single principle, if he has one single feeling that is
predominant over all others, it is to have a fair field to retrieve the
disastrous issue of Waterloo. And besides, sir, all over this country,
throughout Canada, and in Ireland, there are hundreds and thousands and
hundreds of thousands of true-hearted Irishmen who have long prayed
for an opportunity to retaliate upon England for the wrongs which for
centuries that government has inflicted upon their fatherland. If we
know our own position and our own strength--I refer to the strength of
principle--there will be nothing to be afraid of in this contest. If
war must come, let it come; but I tell you, and I do not pretend to
be a prophet, I think the slightest sagacity in public councils will
sustain me in the position that if England enters upon this war, she
will enter upon one of more than doubtful contingency.”[2]
On December 16, in anticipation of the action of the government, Mr.
Vallandigham, of Ohio, introduced into the House of Representatives
a long preamble reciting the facts concerning the capture of the
commissioners by Captain Wilkes, and the subsequent approval of his act
by the secretary of the navy and by the popular branch of congress.
To this was appended a resolution affirming it to be the sense of the
house, “That it is the duty of the president to now firmly maintain the
stand thus taken, approving and adopting the act of Captain Wilkes,
in spite of any menace or demand of the British government, and that
this house pledges its full support to him in upholding now the honor
and vindicating the courage of the government and people of the United
States against a foreign power.” By a vote of one hundred and nine
to sixteen the resolution was referred to the committee on foreign
affairs, Mr. Vallandigham and his friends voting with the minority.[3]
A prominent public man who at that time was holding the position of
minister to one of the European courts thought that “men and money
should be sent into Ireland, India and all of the British dominions all
over the world, to stir up revolt. Our cause is just, and vengeance
will sooner or later overtake that perfidious aristocracy.”
The press throughout the North commented very freely upon the
situation while the British demand was being considered. In general
the newspapers did not sanction the proposed course of the government
and their belligerent tone plainly indicated that they, too, favored
a settlement of the controversy by a resort to arms. The Cincinnati
Commercial said: “If war with England can with honor be avoided, we
must avoid it; but if a peremptory demand for the release of Mason and
Slidell has been made we do not see how it can be honorably complied
with.”
“If we must fight we should pattern after England and hasten
preparations on every side, on a scale commensurate with the danger,
and with the celerity becoming action in so dreadful an emergency.
One of the first things to be done would be the withdrawing from the
southern coast of our fleets and armies, for, if exposed as at present,
they would be annihilated in a month after the British commenced
hostilities. We should also withdraw the outposts at Fortress Monroe,
and provide that place with ample stores of provisions and ammunition
that it might laugh a siege to scorn. The defense of our coast would
also demand the utmost resources of the endangered communities and the
supervision and assistance of the government.”
About the same time the Detroit Free Press said that “The threatened
attitude of our affairs with England has once more called the attention
of the public to our national defenses in the northern states. So far
as the lakes are concerned, it would be impossible for England and
Canada to offer any resistance, for our mercantile marine--much of
which can be used temporarily until ships of war can be constructed--is
more than a hundred fold more than theirs. We have more than a hundred
ships where England and Canada have one, and our sailors upon these
inland seas are in the same proportion. Under these circumstances it
would be idle to expend any large sums of money, if war was probable,
in fortifying our harbors or roadsteads. It is hardly possible to
conceive of such a state of things to occur when we should not command
the lakes absolutely. But to keep this ascendency the states bordering
on the lakes should have large arsenals or depots of ammunition ready
for instant use. If we had rifled cannon we could fit out a hundred
gun-boats, which would command every harbor in the lakes in thirty
days. We have the small steamers, but we have not the guns, the shot,
the shell and other ammunition necessary to use the vessels to the best
advantage.”
Another very well known newspaper said: “We can only hope that those at
the head of the government may be equal to the emergency and that they
will maintain the honor of the nation at whatever sacrifice.”[4]
On December 12, the Cincinnati Gazette discussed the probabilities of a
war with England and the true motive of that country for engaging in a
contest with the United States: “National consciences are easily bent
to suit their own interests. The possessions and the wars of England in
every part of the world show this virtue in her to an eminent degree.
She is now suffering great distress from our war, and has apprehensions
of greater, as the winter advances. Therefore she supposes she has
nothing additional to suffer by a war, and that by opening a market for
her goods, and releasing the cotton supply, she will have immediate
relief and a return to prosperity; while with her immense fleet she
believes the job will be an easy one, and will not cause her any great
additional expense. England believes it her interest to interfere, and
her interest is her most reliable motive, as it is of all nations.”
On December 19, John W. Forney, who was, at that time, one of the best
informed newspaper correspondents in the United States, discussed
the situation in a contribution to the Philadelphia Press. He said:
“England knows she is strong. This is our hour of weakness and she
may make it her opportunity to strike. She can now be arrogant and
insulting, for now her arrogance and insult can not be resented. The
northern coast is exposed to her large and powerful navy; our towns
are not fortified, and she may bring desolation upon our people and
our manufacturing interests. All this she knows. Her armaments are
large and well appointed; her army has been increased almost to a war
footing; she is prepared to throw large bodies of troops into the
eastern and northern portion of our republic; Canada is filled with
armed men, and the frontiers of Canada are simply so many garrisons.
Our commerce is at her mercy. In the Mexican gulf there is a large
British fleet, which could render our newly gained strongholds on the
southern coast untenable, and accomplish the destruction of the brave
men at Port Royal, Hatteras and Santa Rosa Island. She may break our
blockade and entirely nullify our expeditionary operations. With the
Potomac virtually blockaded, and an immense army under Beauregard in
our rear, Washington would probably fall. With the Chesapeake Bay open
to any navy that may choose to enter; with a disloyal population in
Maryland, with enemies along the Virginia and Atlantic coasts, England
could precipitate a fearful series of disasters, and, perhaps, with
the aid of the southern armies, turn the bloody tide of war upon the
northern states.
“It may be in view of all these grave considerations, and the sad
necessities of the case, that in order to avoid a war which could
only end in our discomfiture, the administration may be compelled to
concede the demands of England, and, perhaps, release Messrs. Mason and
Slidell. God forbid, but in a crisis like this we must adapt ourselves
to stern circumstances and yield every feeling of pride to maintain
our existence. If this contingency should ever arrive--and I am only
speculating upon a disagreeable possibility--then let us swear--not
only to ourselves, but to our children who come after us--to repay this
greedy and insolent power with the retribution of a just and fearful
vengeance. If England, in our time of distress, makes herself our foe,
and offers to become our assassin, we will treat her as a foe when we
can do so untrammeled and unmenaced by another enemy.”
Mr. Seward evidently did not take so gloomy a view of the situation.
About a month later, in a private letter in which was discussed the
probability of English interference, he gave it as his opinion that
“whatever nation makes war against us, or forces itself into a war,
will find out that we can and shall suppress rebellion and defeat
invaders besides. The courage and determination of the American people
are aroused for any needful effort--any national sacrifices.”[5]
News of the English demand and its consideration at Washington was
quickly received throughout the South where it caused great rejoicing.
The southern newspapers of December 21 are filled with expressions
of delight at the prospect of a war between England and the United
States. In the South it was believed that such a war would overcome the
power of the Federal navy, bring upon the North and easily secure the
independence of the Southern Confederacy. Virginia orators proclaimed
at Richmond “that the key of the blockade had been lost in the trough
of the Atlantic.”[6] It was said by southern leaders that the only
condition of war was that the North should maintain the position
already assumed. Governor Letcher, of Virginia, seems to have exhibited
much enthusiasm, for he said in a public address that his own nightly
prayers were offered to God that upon this occasion “Lincoln’s backbone
might not give way.”
Still an ominous silence prevailed at Washington. “The leading
statesmen, senators and members of congress, clergymen and delegates
from peace societies, newspaper reporters, speculators in the funds
and many other lesser men, openly or surreptitiously, worked heaven
and earth to ascertain the intentions of the president, but in vain.
Lincoln and Seward smiled calmly at the questioners and evaded a
reply.”[7]
To one inquirer who seemed unusually anxious Mr. Lincoln replied by
telling a story. “Your question reminds me,” said he, “of an incident
which occurred out west. Two roughs were playing cards for high
stakes, when one of them, suspecting his adversary of foul play,
straightway drew his bowie-knife from his belt and pinned the hand of
the other player upon the table, exclaiming: ‘If you haven’t got the
ace of spades under your palm, I’ll apologize.’”[8]
To persons who expressed a fear that public sentiment might become so
strongly in favor of war that that course would have to be determined
upon, and that such a proceeding would be fatal to the country, Mr.
Lincoln replied by telling a characteristic story. He said: “My father
had a neighbor from whom he was only separated by a fence. On each side
of that fence there were two savage dogs, who kept running backward
and forward along the barrier all day, barking and snapping at each
other. One day they came to a large opening recently made in the fence.
Perhaps you think they took advantage of this to devour each other?
Not at all; scarcely had they seen the gap, when they both ran back,
each with their tails between their legs. These two dogs are fair
representatives of America and England.”[9]
The language of Earl Russell’s demand and Lord Lyons’s manner of
presenting it were in themselves sufficiently courteous. This feature
of it would be worthy of commendation, if there were nothing else to
be considered in connection with it. The United States government was
to be allowed no opportunity for a full statement of the facts or to
present its own views of the right to make the capture. Behind the
demand was the instruction to Lord Lyons to leave Washington within
a week in the event of the failure of the Federal government to
comply with the British terms; there were the extensive preparations
in England for war; there was the hurrying of several thousand troops
into Canada and the hasty fortification of the frontier of that
province, and lastly the evasive answer Lord Lyons should return, if
he were asked what would be the consequences of a refusal to surrender
the prisoners. These things all foretold with unmistakable clearness
what the consequence would be, if any attempt were made by the United
States to maintain the seizure on the principles of international law
as determined even by British precedents and practice. It meant simply
instant war--a struggle in which England would be actuated by motives
of selfish policy in a much greater degree than by the principle that
she was pretending to uphold and defend. The weavers of Lancashire at
that time were beginning to suffer from a cotton famine, and there
was much impatience from that quarter on account of the continuance
of the civil war in America. It was a struggle in which England had
everything to gain so far as her industrial and material interests were
concerned, for it meant an abundant supply of cotton for Lancashire and
the addition of millions of customers to British markets with all the
advantages which that would confer. To the United States, on the other
hand, such a war meant the loss of everything--the transfer of the
Federal armies to the northern frontier, the raising of the blockade,
the ravaging of unprotected coasts, the bombardment and blockade
of sea coast cities, a probable invasion of the northern states by
British troops from Canada, and last but not least an alliance between
England and the Confederacy--a move which would probably result
in establishing the independence of the latter and the permanent
disseverance of the Union. It was necessary to bear all of these things
in mind while considering the British demand.
Mr. Seward evidently did not expect England to take such a serious
stand in regard to the matter. It had been his belief that the British
government would not want the prisoners.[10] He said on a later
occasion that Lord Lyons’s communication was “our first knowledge that
the British government proposed to make it a question of insult and so
of war.”[11]
Nothing is known of the first private conferences between Secretary
Seward and the president concerning this matter. It is more than
probable, however, in the light of subsequent events, that Mr. Lincoln
foresaw the inevitable at once and hoped only for some method of
escape from the difficulty, without dishonor to the country or loss of
any indirect advantage to the United States which might result from
a compliance with the British demand. He saw, too, the necessity of
making the compliance in such a way that it would be as agreeable as
possible to public opinion throughout the country, which was decidedly
opposed to the surrender of the commissioners. A cabinet meeting was
appointed for December 24, at which it was expected to consider the
demand for the surrender of Messrs. Mason and Slidell. The date of
this meeting was afterward postponed, on account of urgent domestic
affairs, until December 25. It is to be presumed that Mr. Lincoln
gave the matter much earnest consideration during the interval. He
prepared an experimental draft of a dispatch in answer to the one which
had been submitted by Lord Lyons. In his proposed answer Mr. Lincoln
acknowledged the receipt of his lordship’s dispatch, and said that
redress would be due and cheerfully made to England, if the facts as
stated in the British demand were all that bore upon the case. But
such, he said, was not the case; the British side of the matter only
had been presented and the record was incomplete. An unwillingness
to express an opinion was then asserted, inasmuch as the Federal
government had no assurance that its views would be heard or considered
by her majesty’s government. It was then stated that no insult to
the British flag had been intended, neither was it desired to force
any embarrassing question into discussion. Both of these facts were
evident, it was stated, because the seizure had been made without any
instructions whatever from the United States government. The difficulty
incident to a complete undoing of Captain Wilkes’s act, unless it were
wrong or very questionable, was then mentioned and an inquiry made as
to whether the British government would consider the American side
of the question, including the fact of existing insurrection in the
United States; the neutral attitude of England toward the belligerents;
the American citizenship and the traitorous mission of the captured
persons; the British captain’s knowledge of these things when the
commissioners embarked at Havana; the place where the capture was made,
and the bearing of international law and precedent upon the case. It
was then stated that, if the foregoing facts together with any others
pertinent to either side of the case could be submitted, the Federal
government would, if England were willing, cheerfully submit the whole
affair to a peaceable arbitration and would abide the result. The last
paragraph of the proposed dispatch provided that no redress should
exceed in kind and amount that which was already demanded and that the
award should constitute the basis of a rule for the determination of
similar cases between the two nations in future.
When the cabinet meeting to consider the matter was finally held Mr.
Lincoln’s proposed dispatch was not discussed, neither was any similar
proceeding urged. More than half of the days of grace had elapsed and
something must be done quickly else a foreign war would be added to
the domestic one. However desirable arbitration may have been it was
precluded by the nature of the demand of England.
The principal discussion seems to have been devoted to a proposed
dispatch of Secretary Seward by the terms of which the commissioners
were to be surrendered. There may have been some miscellaneous talk
and a discussion of current rumors. Senator Sumner, chairman of the
senate committee on foreign relations, was invited in. One day was not
found sufficient for the consideration of this important matter, and
the session was therefore continued on the following day. Mr. Seward’s
proposed dispatch upon which the surrender was based could not be fully
discussed at one session, as the paper appears to have been prepared
solely by the secretary of state without the assistance of either Mr.
Lincoln or any of his cabinet officers. Of the debate and the various
opinions, we have some record in the subsequent writings of the
different persons who were present.
From the published extracts taken from the diary of Attorney-General
Bates, it appears that there was a full and frank discussion of the
paper of Mr. Seward. All of the members of the cabinet were impressed
with the extraordinary gravity of the situation as probably the fate
of the nation depended on the result of their deliberations. Mr. Bates
himself urged the surrender. Waiving the legal right about which
there was much doubt, he favored compliance with the British demand
on account of the necessity of the case. The country could not afford
to have a war with England, he thought, as that would be to give up
hope of subduing the insurrection; it would ruin trade, bankrupt the
treasury, and bring other calamities. President Lincoln and the other
members were slow to acknowledge these truths.
Mr. Welles has said: “The president was from the first willing to make
concession. Mr. Blair advocated it. Mr. Seward was at the beginning
opposed to any idea of concession which involved giving up the
emissaries, but yielded at once and with dexterity to the peremptory
demand of Great Britain.”[12] In another place Mr. Welles says: “Mr.
Seward should receive credit for the dexterous and skillful dispatch
which he prepared on his change of position. It exhibits his readiness
and peculiar tact and talent to extricate himself from and to pass over
difficulties.”[13]
In private correspondence Mr. Seward afterward said of the matter: “The
consideration of the Trent case was crowded out by pressing domestic
affairs until Christmas day. It was considered on my presentation of
it on the 25th and 26th of December. The government when it took the
subject up had no idea of the grounds upon which it would explain its
action nor did it believe that it would concede the case. Yet it was
heartily unanimous in the actual result after two days examination in
favor of the release. Remember that in a council like ours there are
some strong wills to be reconciled.”[14]
Secretary Chase recorded his own opinion as he gave it in the
discussion. He thought it was too much for the English government to
expect of the United States on that occasion, and that she ought to
overlook the little wrong. He believed that Great Britain did not fully
understand all of the circumstances as did the United States, and if
she did, the surrender of the commissioners would not be expected. If
the conditions were reversed the Federal government would accept the
explanations of the English government, and allow their rebels to be
retained, and he could not help believing that Great Britain would do
likewise were the case fully understood. He continued to discuss the
subject as follows: “But we can not afford delays. While the matter
hangs in uncertainty the public mind will remain disquieted, our
commerce will suffer serious harm, our action against the rebels must
be greatly hindered, and the restoration of our prosperity--largely
identified with that of all nations--must be delayed. Better, then, to
make now the sacrifice of feeling involved in the surrender of these
rebels, than even avoid it by the delays which explanations must
occasion. I give my adhesion, therefore, to the conclusion at which the
secretary of state has arrived. It is gall and wormwood to me. Rather
than consent to the liberation of these men I would rather sacrifice
everything I possess. But I am consoled by the reflection that, while
nothing but severest retribution is due to them, the surrender, under
existing circumstances, is but simply doing right--simply proving
faithful to our own ideas and traditions under strong temptations to
violate them--simply giving to England and the world the most signal
proof that the American nation will not under any circumstances,
for the sake of inflicting just punishment on rebels, commit even a
technical wrong against neutrals.”[15]
The main reason for hesitation was doubtless the fear of public opinion
in the North. It was certain that a surrender of the commissioners
would bring the displeasure of the people upon the government, which
would be accused of having timidly submitted to the unjust demands
of England. Statesmen greatly dislike to act under what appears to
be menace or dictation from a foreign power. The cabinet discussion
ended, however, as has been stated already by two of the members, in
a unanimous agreement upon the letter of reply which the secretary
of state had prepared. This communication proposed a surrender upon
diplomatic reasons which were apparently a triumph of the American
principle.
AUTHORITIES AND REFERENCES.
1. Congressional Globe: Pt. I, 2d Sess., 37th Cong.
2. Diary of Events, Moore’s Rebellion Record, Vol. III.
3. Magazine of American History, March, 1886, and June, 1886.
4. McPherson’s Political History of the Rebellion, p. 343.
5. Nicolay and Hay: Life of Lincoln, Vol. V.
6. Paris, Comte de: The Civil War in America.
7. Pollard, E. A.: The Lost Cause.
8. Principal American Newspapers, December, 1861.
9. Southern Law Review, Vol. VIII.
10. Weed, Thurlow: Life of, Vol. II.
11. Welles, Gideon: Lincoln and Seward.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] C. K. Tuckerman in Magazine of American History, June, 1886.
[2] Congressional Globe, Dec. 26, 1861.
[3] Mr. Vallandigham’s sincerity may well be doubted. His purpose was
probably to embarrass the government.
[4] Indianapolis Sentinel, Dec. 7, 1861.
[5] Life of Thurlow Weed, Vol. II, p. 410.
[6] Pollard, p. 196.
[7] Tuckerman, Magazine American History, June, 1886.
[8] Magazine of American History, June, 1886.
[9] Comte de Paris, Civil War in America, pp. 470-1.
[10] Welles’s Lincoln and Seward, p. 186.
[11] Seward to Weed, March 7, 1862.
[12] Lincoln and Seward by Gideon Welles, I, p. 188.
[13] Ibid, p. 185.
[14] Seward to Weed, Life of Thurlow Weed, Vol. II, p. 409.
[15] Warden’s Life of Chase, pp. 393-394.
CHAPTER XV.
VIEWS OF OTHER EUROPEAN NATIONS CONCERNING THE TRENT CASE.
The forcible seizure of the Confederate commissioners while on board
the Trent caused more or less of discussion throughout Europe. The
technical right of Captain Wilkes to make the capture was not admitted.
Neutral governments regarded it as prejudicial to their own interests.
It was held that such an act tended toward an abridgment of the rights
and privileges which had been previously enjoyed by the neutral
flag. Many of the European governments took occasion to make public
their views concerning the matter, and to express the hope that the
government at Washington would not insist upon maintaining the right
to seize even its own rebellious citizens on board a neutral ship.
Such a proceeding, it was said, did not conform to the principles of
international law, and was not consistent even with American precedents
and practice.
Many of the United States ministers in Europe sent reports to
Washington concerning the feeling in the various capitals to which they
were respectively accredited.
Three of the principal European powers communicated their views of
the matter to the United States government. This was done in the
usual courteous language of diplomacy and through the medium of their
respective ministers at Washington. In a dispatch to M. Mercier, M.
Thouvenel, the French minister for foreign affairs, communicated his
opinion as follows:
“PARIS, December 3, 1861.
“SIR--The arrest of Messrs. Mason and Slidell on board the English
mail packet Trent by an American cruiser has produced in France, if
not the same emotion as in England, at least a profound astonishment
and sensation. Public opinion was immediately occupied with the
legality and the consequences of such an act, and the impression
which has been thereby produced has not been for an instant doubtful.
The act seemed to the public to be so entirely at variance with
the ordinary rules of international law that it has determined to
throw the responsibility exclusively on the commander of the San
Jacinto. We are not yet in a position to know if this supposition is
well founded, and the government of the emperor have been therefore
compelled to examine the question raised by the removal of the
two passengers from the Trent. The desire to aid in preventing a
conflict, perhaps imminent, between the powers towards whom they are
animated by equally friendly sentiments, and the desire to maintain,
with a view to placing the rights of their own flag beyond the
danger of any attack, certain principles essential to the security
of neutrals, have convinced them, after mature reflection, that they
could not remain perfectly silent on the matter.
“If, to our great regret, the cabinet at Washington should be
disposed to approve the conduct of the commander of the San Jacinto,
it would be because they consider Messrs. Mason and Slidell as
enemies, or because they only recognize them as rebels. In the
one case as in the other there would be an extremely painful
forgetfulness of principles on which we have always found the United
States agree with us.
“On what ground can the American cruiser, in the first case, have
arrested Messrs. Mason and Slidell? The United States have admitted,
with us, in the treaties concluded between the two countries, that
the freedom of the flag extends to persons found on board, even
were they enemies of one of the two parties, except, at least, in
the case of military men actually in the service of the enemy.
Messrs. Mason and Slidell were, by virtue of this principle, the
insertion of which in our treaties of amity and commerce has never
encountered any difficulty, perfectly free under the neutral flag
of England. It will not, doubtless, be pretended that they could be
considered as contraband of war. That which constitutes contraband
of war has not yet, it is true, been precisely determined. Its
limits are not absolutely the same with all the powers. But, as far
as regards persons, the special stipulations which are found in
treaties concerning military men clearly define the character of
those who may be seized by belligerents. Now there is no occasion to
demonstrate that Messrs. Mason and Slidell can not be assimilated to
persons in this category. There would therefore remain nothing to
explain their capture but this pretext--that they were bearers of
official dispatches of the enemy. Now this is the place to recall
a circumstance which should govern this entire affair, and which
renders unjustifiable the conduct of the American cruiser. The Trent
was not bound to a point belonging to either of the belligerents. She
was carrying her cargo and passengers to a neutral country, and it
was, moreover, in a neutral port where she had embarked them. If it
was admissible that, under such circumstances, the neutral flag did
not completely cover the persons and goods on board, its immunity
would be an empty word. At any moment the commerce and navigation
of third powers would be liable to suffer in their innocent or
even indirect relations with one or other of the belligerents.
These latter would not have the right to require from the neutral
a complete impartiality--to prohibit him from all participation in
acts of hostility; they would impose upon his liberty of commerce and
navigation restrictions of which modern international law has refused
to admit the legality. In a word, we should return to those vexatious
practices against which, in former times, no power has protested more
energetically than the United States.
“If the cabinet at Washington could only regard the two persons
arrested as rebels, whom they have always a right to seize, the
question, to place it in another light, could not thereby be solved
any the more in a sense favorable to the conduct of the commander of
the San Jacinto.
“In such a case there would be a non-recognition of the principle
which constitutes a ship to be a portion of the territory of the
country whose flag she bears, and there would be a violation of the
immunity which forbids a foreign sovereign to exercise there his
jurisdiction. It is not necessary, doubtless, to recall the energy
with which on every occasion the government of the United States
have defended this immunity, and the right of asylum, which is a
consequence of it.
“Without wishing to enter into a deeper discussion of questions
raised by the capture of Messrs. Mason and Slidell, I have said
enough, I think, to establish that the cabinet of Washington can not,
without aiming a blow at those principles which all neutral powers
are equally interested in maintaining, nor without putting itself in
contradiction with its own conduct up to the present day, give its
approval to the proceedings of the commander of the San Jacinto.
“In this state of things, there can not be, in our opinion, any
hesitation as to the course to pursue. Lord Lyons is already
instructed to present the demands for satisfaction which the English
government is under the necessity of drawing up, and which consist in
the immediate release of the persons taken from on board the Trent,
and in sending explanations calculated to remove from this act its
offensive character to the British flag.
“The Federal government would be inspired by a just and elevated
sentiment in yielding to these demands. One would vainly search for
what object or in what interest they would risk to provoke, by a
different attitude, a rupture with Great Britain. For ourselves, who
would see in this case a complication, in every way deplorable, of
the difficulties with which the cabinet at Washington has already to
struggle against, and a precedent of a nature to render seriously
uneasy all those powers not parties to the present contest, we
think we are giving a proof of loyal amity towards the cabinet of
Washington in not allowing them to be ignorant of our opinion in
this circumstance. I invite you, sir, to take the first opportunity
of speaking frankly to Mr. Seward, and if he should ask it, to leave
with him a copy of this dispatch.
Receive, etc., THOUVENEL.”
This dispatch was submitted to the president, but it had been
previously decided to give up the commissioners. After stating this
fact in his answer to the French dispatch, Mr. Seward said: “That
disposition of the subject, as I think, renders unnecessary any
discussion of it, in reply to the comments of Mr. Thouvenel. I am
permitted, however, to say that Mr. Thouvenel has not been in error
in supposing, first, that the government of the United States has not
acted in any spirit of disregard of the rights or of the sensibilities
of the British nation, and that he is equally just in assuming that the
United States would consistently vindicate, by their practice on this
occasion, the character they have so long maintained as an advocate of
the most liberal principles concerning the rights of neutral states in
maritime war.
“You will assure Mr. Thouvenel that this government appreciates as well
the frankness of his explanations, as the spirit of friendship and
good-will towards the United States in which they are expressed.”
Exception may be taken to some of the things said by M. Thouvenel in
this letter. He expressed the opinion that Messrs. Mason and Slidell
were “perfectly free under the neutral flag of England,” and referred
to the treaties between the United States and France, which provided
that persons, though enemies to either or both countries, should not be
taken from a free ship. The treaties referred to had expired and were,
consequently, of no effect. If they had been in full force, however,
they could have determined nothing definitely in the settlement of a
maritime question between the United States and England. The analogy
only, in such a case, would be of any value.
M. Thouvenel also held that in this case “there would be a
non-recognition of the principle which constitutes a ship to be
a portion of the territory of the country whose flag she bears.”
This doctrine is not sound. Neutral territory can not be seized and
condemned because offenses against the rights of neutrals are practiced
upon it. If a ship were simply a bit of neutral territory it could not
be seized and condemned for carrying contraband of war or otherwise
offending against neutral rights. The law of nations, however,
permits capture and confiscation of a vessel for such offenses. If M.
Thouvenel’s doctrine be admitted, who can tell what this small portion
of neutral territory, protected by its own flag, might not do?
The views of the Austrian government were duly submitted in the
following dispatch to its representative at Washington.
“VIENNA, December 18, 1861.
(Confidential.)
“The difference which has occurred between the government of the
United States and that of Great Britain in consequence of the arrest
of Messrs. Slidell and Mason, effected by the captain of the American
ship of war, the San Jacinto, on board the English packet, the Trent,
has not failed to attract the most serious attention of the imperial
cabinet. The more importance we attach to the preservation of good
relations between the United States and England the more must we
regret an accident which has complicated in such a grave manner a
situation already surrounded with difficulties.
“Without having any intention of entering here into an examination of
the question of right, we can not, however, overlook the fact that
according to the notions of international law adopted by all the
powers, and which the American government itself has often taken as
the rule of its conduct, England could not by any means refrain in
the present case from making a representation against the attack made
on its flag, and from demanding a just reparation for it. It appears
to us, moreover, that the demands drawn up for this purpose by the
cabinet of St. James have nothing in them hurtful to the feelings of
the cabinet of Washington, and that the latter will be able to do
an act of equity and moderation without the least sacrifice of its
dignity.
“We think that we can hope that the government of the United States,
in taking counsel both from the rules which govern international
relations, as well as from considerations of enlightened policy
rather than from the manifestations produced by an over-excitement
of national feeling, will bring to bear on its deliberation all the
calmness which the gravity of the case requires, and will think it
right to decide on a course which, while preserving from rupture the
relations between two great states to which Austria is equally bound
in friendship, will tend to avert the grave disturbances which the
eventuality of a war could not fail to bring about, not only upon
each one of the contending parties, but upon the affairs of the world
in general.
“Be so good, M. le Chevalier, as to bring the preceding reflections
to the notice of Mr. Seward, and to inform us of the manner in which
the minister shall have received your communication.
Receive, etc.,
“RECHBERG.”
This dispatch having been submitted to the president, a brief answer
was prepared by Mr. Seward as soon as a settlement of the matter had
been effected with Great Britain. A copy of the correspondence which
had passed between the United States government and those of Great
Britain and France, concerning the detention of the Trent, and the
capture of the Confederate commissioners, was also forwarded to the
Austrian government with the statement that important facts would be
learned from them as follows:
“First. That the United States are not only incapable, for a moment, of
seeking to disturb the peace of the world, but are deliberate, just and
friendly in their intercourse with all foreign nations.
“Secondly. That they will not be unfaithful to their traditions and
policy, as an advocate of the broadest liberality in the application of
the principle of international law to the conduct of maritime warfare.
“The United States, faithful to their sentiments, and at the same time
careful of their political constitution, will sincerely rejoice if the
occasion which has given rise to this correspondence shall be improved
so as to obtain a revision of the law of nations, which will render
more definite and certain the rights and obligations of states in time
of war.”
Assurances were also expressed that the president highly appreciated
the frankness and sincerity of the Austrian government on an occasion
of such great interest to the welfare of the United States.
In about a month after the reception of the news of the capture of the
Confederate commissioners, the Prussian government expressed its views
in the following dispatch to its minister at Washington:
“BERLIN, December 25, 1861.
“M. LE BARON--The maritime operations undertaken by President Lincoln
against the southern seceding states could not, from their very
commencement, but fill the king’s government with apprehension lest
they should result in possible prejudice to the legitimate interests
of neutral powers.
“These apprehensions have unfortunately proved fully justified by the
forcible seizure on board the neutral mail packet the Trent, and the
abduction therefrom of Messrs. Slidell and Mason by the commander of
the United States man-of-war the San Jacinto.
“This occurrence, as you can well imagine, has produced in England
and throughout Europe the most profound sensation, and thrown, not
cabinets only, but also public opinion into a state of the most
excited expectation. For, although at present it is England only
which is immediately concerned in the matter, yet, on the other hand,
it is one of the most important and universally recognized rights of
the neutral flag which has been called into question.
“I need not here enter into a discussion of the legal side of the
question. Public opinion in Europe has, with singular unanimity,
pronounced in the most positive manner for the injured party. As
far as we are concerned we have hitherto abstained from expressing
ourselves to you upon the subject, because in the absence of any
reliable information we were in doubt as to whether the captain of
the San Jacinto, in the course taken by him, had been acting under
orders from his government or not. Even now we prefer to assume that
the latter was the case. Should the former supposition, however, turn
out to be the correct one, we should consider ourselves under the
necessity of attributing greater importance to the occurrence, and
to our great regret we should find ourselves constrained to see in
it not an isolated fact, but a public menace offered to the existing
rights of all neutrals.
“We have as yet no certain information as to the demands made by
England to the American cabinet, upon the acceptance of which
the maintenance of peace appears to depend. As far, however, as
our information reaches on the subject, we are convinced that no
conditions have been put forward by the British government which
could justly offend President Lincoln’s sense of honor.
“His majesty, the king, filled with the most ardent wishes for
the welfare of the United States of North America, has commanded
me to advocate the cause of peace with President Lincoln, through
your instrumentality, to the utmost of my power. We should reckon
ourselves fortunate if we could in this wise succeed in facilitating
the peaceful solution of a conflict from which the greatest dangers
might arise. It is possible, however, that the president has already
taken his decision and announced it. Whatever that decision may be,
the king’s government, when they reflect upon the uninterrupted
relations of friendship and amity which have existed between Prussia
and the United States ever since the latter was founded, will
derive satisfaction from the thought of having laid with the most
unreserved candor their views of this occurrence before the cabinet
at Washington, and expressed the wishes which they entertain in
connection with it.
“You will read this dispatch without delay to the secretary of state
for foreign affairs, and, should he desire it, you will give him a
copy of it. I shall await your report upon the instructions contained
in this dispatch, and I avail, etc.,
BERNSTORFF.”
The publication of the opinions of other European governments caused
the expression of much gratification in England. There appeared to
be so much harmony of sentiment throughout Europe upon this matter
that the confidence of the British ministry was much increased in the
position which it had at first assumed. It endured with the greatest
patience the severe criticism upon the past policy of Great Britain
relating to the rights of neutrals. The cabinet probably thought that
a substantial advantage would be gained to England in the immediate
dispute which was under consideration, and hence it was easier to bear
censure for past misconduct. In a discussion of the matter one of the
English reviews said: “The whole of Europe has pronounced that we were
right.”[1]
A brief consideration of the matter, however, is sufficient to show
that it was not sentiments of unfriendliness toward the United States
which prompted the other nations of Europe so quickly to disapprove the
the act of Captain Wilkes, and urge the Federal government to concede
the British demand to surrender the commissioners. For a century the
tendency of Great Britain had been toward a restriction of the rights
of neutrals to the narrowest possible limits. When an act of doubtful
legality was performed on the deck of an English cruiser by an American
captain, it was with the greatest satisfaction that the nations on
the continent of Europe saw England disavow her own former precedents
bearing upon this case, and plant herself squarely upon the doctrine
of enlarged neutral rights. The view of the other countries was that
it was a most fortunate opportunity for securing new and enlarged
modifications of the law of nations such as would restrain England in
future from a policy that was disagreeable to themselves. It was their
own interests which they were seeking to promote, not those of England.
The concession of the British demand by the Federal government would
establish a principle of maritime law which would be of value to the
world in all future time. This was the motive which induced the other
nations to assume the position that was common to all of them.
One of the most devoted European friends of the United States at
that time was Count Agénor De Gasparin of France.[2] He says in his
discussion of the views of other nations concerning the matter: “On
seeing such haste and so haughty a proclamation of indisputable
exigence, on seeing the idea of an impious war accepted with so much
readiness by some, and so much ill-dissembled joy by others, Europe
declared without circumlocution or reserve that if England were not
miraculously rescued from her own enterprise, if she drew the sword
against the North in the capacity of an ally of the South, she would
destroy with her own hands her chief claim to the respect of the
civilized world. The language on this point was the same at Paris,
Berlin, St. Petersburg, Vienna and Turin. As they were unanimous in
deciding the technical question of right against America, so were they
unanimous in deciding the moral question against England. To recognize
the technical right in favor of England, was to recognize the right
of neutrals against her. Who is simple enough to be astonished at the
eagerness displayed here by the other powers?”
It is worthy of special notice that, during the entire period of the
American civil war, the most powerful ruler in all Europe was an
outspoken and steadfast friend of the United States. If a war had
occurred between England and the northern states of America as a result
of the affair of the Trent, it is well-nigh certain that the Federal
government would have had a powerful ally in the czar, Alexander
of Russia, who, doubtless, remembered the losses he had recently
sustained in the Crimean war. In this war England had been his most
powerful enemy. In a few weeks after the capture of the Confederate
commissioners, a fleet of Russian war vessels appeared in New York
harbor and remained there for several months. At the same time a number
of Russian men-of-war were stationed at San Francisco. No official
explanation was ever given for the long-continued presence of these
war vessels in American waters. Their extended visit caused much
comment, but their purpose was easily divined and their presence was
not unwelcome while a war between England and the northern states was
imminent.
While at the Astor House, in New York, Admiral Farragut was visited by
the Russian admiral, with whom he had formerly become well acquainted.
On being asked why he was spending the winter in idleness in an
American harbor the Russian replied: “I am here under sealed orders,
to be broken only in a contingency which has not yet occurred.” He
also added that the commander of the Russian men-of-war lying off San
Francisco harbor had received similar orders. In the same interview he
admitted that his orders were to break the seals, if, while he remained
at New York, the United States became involved in a war with any
foreign nation.
Soon afterward, when Secretary Seward asked the Russian minister why
the czar kept his war vessels so long in American harbors, he replied
that, while he did not know the exact nature of the orders under which
the commanders of the fleets were acting, he felt at liberty to say
that it was no unfriendly purpose which caused the prolonged stay of
these men-of-war in the waters of the United States.
It seems that when official knowledge was conveyed to the czar that
England was making preparations for war with the United States
on account of the detention of the Trent and the seizure of the
Confederate commissioners two fleets of war vessels were immediately
sent to America under orders which were sealed so that the intentions
of the Russian government might remain unknown to the world in the
event that the services of the men-of-war should not be needed on this
side of the Atlantic.
A prominent American who was in St. Petersburg at that time made an
unofficial call upon the Russian chancellor, and was shown the czar’s
order to his admiral to report to the president of the United States
for duty in case the northern states became involved in a war with
England.[3]
AUTHORITIES AND REFERENCES.
1. Bernard, Montague: Pamphlet on the Trent Question.
2. British Annual Register, 1861.
3. Dana’s Wheaton’s International Law, section 504, note.
4. De Gasparin: L’Amérique devant l’Europe.
5. London Quarterly Review, No. 221.
6. Seward, William H.: Works of, Vol. V.
7. Weed, Thurlow: Life of, Vol. II.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] London Quarterly Review, No. 221, p. 273.
[2] See his “L’Amérique devant l’Europe.” Chapter on the Trent case.
[3] See Thurlow Weed’s account of this matter. Life of Weed. Vol. II,
pp. 346-7.
CHAPTER XVI.
THE ANSWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
The president and cabinet having agreed to surrender the Confederate
commissioners, Mr. Seward’s letter of reply to the British demand was
sent to Lord Lyons without delay. The communication was quite long,
and began by making a careful and complete statement of the contents
of Lord Russell’s note of November 30, asking for reparation. Mr.
Seward then stated that the capture was made without any direction,
instruction, or even foreknowledge of the Federal government; that
no orders whatever had been issued to Captain Wilkes or to any other
naval officer to arrest the four persons taken from the Trent or any
of them, either on that vessel or any other British or neutral ship;
and that the British government would justly infer from these facts
that the United States had no purpose or even thought of forcing into
discussion the question that had arisen or any other which could affect
the sensibilities of the British nation.
The facts concerning the boarding of the Trent as reported by Commander
Williams were then reviewed by Mr. Seward and correctly stated, the
fictions being all pointed out.
“I have now to remind your lordship,” continued Mr. Seward, “of some
facts which doubtlessly were omitted by Earl Russell, with the very
proper and becoming motive of allowing them to be brought into the
case, on the part of the United States, in the way most satisfactory
to this government. These facts are, that at the time the transaction
occurred an insurrection was existing in the United States which this
government was engaged in suppressing by the employment of land and
naval forces; that in regard to this domestic strife the United States
considered Great Britain as a friendly power, while she had assumed for
herself the attitude of a neutral; and that Spain was considered in the
same light, and had assumed the same attitude as Great Britain.
“It had been settled by correspondence that the United States and Great
Britain mutually recognized as applicable to this local strife these
two articles of the declaration made by the congress of Paris in 1856,
namely, that the neutral or friendly flag should cover enemy’s goods
not contraband of war, and that neutral goods not contraband of war
are not liable to capture under an enemy’s flag. These exceptions of
contraband from favor were a negative acceptance by the parties of the
rule hitherto everywhere recognized as a part of the law of nations,
that whatever is contraband is liable to capture and confiscation in
all cases.”
The character and purposes of the persons seized were then carefully
explained, and the statement made that it was to be presumed that the
commissioners bore dispatches which it appeared from information sent
by the American consul at Paris had escaped the search of the Trent
and reached England in safety. Mr. Seward also stated, upon information
and belief, that the agent and officers of the Trent, including
Commander Williams, before leaving Havana knew that Messrs. Mason and
Slidell were commissioners from the Confederate States on their way to
Europe.
From the foregoing facts Mr. Seward arrived at the conclusion that
the case was not an act of violence or outrage but only an ordinary
and legal belligerent proceeding against a neutral vessel carrying
contraband of war for the use and benefit of the insurgents; that the
question was whether this had been done in accordance with the law of
nations; and that the following inquiries were involved:
“1. Were the persons named and their supposed dispatches contraband of
war?
“2. Might Captain Wilkes lawfully stop and search the Trent for these
contraband persons and dispatches?
“3. Did he exercise that right in a lawful and proper manner?
“4. Having found the contraband persons on board and in presumed
possession of the contraband dispatches, had he a right to capture the
persons?
“5. Did he exercise that right of capture in the manner allowed and
recognized by the law of nations?”
It was then stated that if these questions should be answered in the
affirmative, the British government would have no claim for reparation.
The first four were argued briefly by the secretary and an affirmative
conclusion reached in the case of each one. The difficulties began
with the fifth question. Maritime law is sufficiently clear as to the
disposition to be made of captured contraband vessels and property,
but it says nothing concerning the mode of procedure in regard to
contraband persons. “The belligerent captor,” said Mr. Seward, “has a
right to prevent the contraband officer, soldier, sailor, minister,
messenger or courier from proceeding in his unlawful voyage and
reaching the destined scene of his injurious service. But, on the
other hand, the person captured may be innocent--that is, he may not
be contraband. He, therefore, has a right to a fair trial of the
accusation against him. The neutral state that has taken him under its
flag is bound to protect him if he is not contraband, and is therefore
entitled to be satisfied upon that important question. The faith of
that state is pledged to his safety, if innocent, as its justice
is pledged to his surrender if he is really contraband. Here are
conflicting claims, involving personal liberty, life, honor, and duty.
Here are conflicting national claims involving welfare, safety, honor,
and empire. They require a tribunal and a trial. The captors and the
captured are equals; the neutral and the belligerent states are equals.”
It was then stated that the American government had early suggested
that such controversies be settled by proper judicial proceedings. If
the suspected persons were proved to be contraband, the vessel would
also partake of that character. If the men were not contraband, the
vessel would escape condemnation. Although there would be no judgment
for or against the captured persons, yet a legal certainty concerning
their character would result from the determination of the court
concerning the vessel.
Objections were then pointed out even to this course of proceeding,
the chief of which was that such a judgment concludes nothing, for it
binds neither the belligerent nor the neutral upon the question of the
disposition to be made of the captured persons. Such a question would
still have to be really determined by diplomacy or by war. Regret was
expressed that maritime systems of law furnished no better processes
of determining the characters of contraband persons, and the statement
made that is was practically then a choice between the illogical and
circuitous methods already suggested and no judicial remedy at all.
“If there be no judicial remedy,” said Mr. Seward, “the result is
that the question must be determined by the captor himself, on the
deck of the prize vessel. Very grave objections arise against such a
course. The captor is armed, the neutral is unarmed. The captor is
interested, prejudiced, and perhaps violent; the neutral, if truly
neutral, is disinterested, subdued and helpless. The tribunal is
irresponsible, while its judgment is carried into instant execution.
The captured party is compelled to submit, though bound by no legal,
moral, or treaty obligation to acquiesce. Reparation is distant and
problematical, and depends at last on the justice, magnanimity or
weakness of the state in whose behalf and by whose authority the
capture was made. Out of these disputes reprisals and wars necessarily
arise, and these are so frequent and destructive that it may well
be doubted whether this form of remedy is not a greater social evil
than all that could follow if the belligerent right of search were
universally renounced and abolished forever. But carry the case one
step farther. What if the state that has made the capture unreasonably
refuse to hear the complaint of the neutral or to redress it? In that
case, the very act of capture would be an act of war--of war begun
without notice, and possibly entirely without provocation.
“I think all unprejudiced minds will agree that, imperfect as the
existing judicial remedy may be supposed to be, it would be, as a
general practice, better to follow it than to adopt the summary one
of leaving the decision with the captor and relying upon diplomatic
debates to review his decision. Practically, it is a question of choice
between law, with its imperfections and delays, and war, with its evils
and desolations.”
Mr. Seward then said there were cases where the judicial remedy would
become impossible as by the shipwreck of the prize vessel, or other
circumstances which excuse the captor from sending her into port for
confiscation. Such a case, however, would not annul the right of the
captor to the custody of the contraband persons so that their unlawful
purposes can not be accomplished. The captor in such a case should show
that the failure of the judicial remedy resulted from circumstances
entirely beyond his control and without his fault. Any other course
would permit him to derive advantages from his own wrongful act.
Secretary Seward next reviewed the course of Captain Wilkes in making
a prize of the Trent and capturing the contraband persons lawfully,
then permitting her to continue upon her voyage instead of sending her
into port for adjudication. The capture was incomplete, if the whole
thing constituted a single transaction. It was unfinished or abandoned.
Whether the leaving of the act unfinished was voluntary or not, was the
question which was to determine the validity of the British claim for
reparation. If necessary and, therefore, involuntary, the British claim
for reparation would be unfounded; if unnecessary and voluntary, then
the claim was well founded.
Captain Wilkes’s reasons for not carrying the Trent into port were then
reviewed and carefully examined. The first reason was on account of his
being so reduced in officers and crew, and the second was the great
inconvenience, loss, and disappointment which would have resulted to
the passengers of the vessel. So far as Captain Wilkes was concerned
the reasons were satisfactory to the United States government. It could
not desire that the San Jacinto should be exposed to danger and loss by
reducing her officers and crew in order to put a prize crew on board
the Trent and carry her into port; neither could it disavow the humane
motive of preventing inconveniences, losses, and possibly disasters to
the passengers who were on board the captured vessel. It manifestly
did not occur to Captain Wilkes that such a course might sacrifice the
right of his government to retain the captured persons, although he was
not deserving of censure for anything that he had done. The question
was not whether he was justified to his government, but what the view
of his government was as to the effect of his course in not bringing
the Trent into port.
This brought into view the question whether the release of the Trent
was a voluntary or an involuntary proceeding. It would have been
clearly involuntary, if made solely upon the ground that Captain Wilkes
could not bring the prize vessel into port on account of a lack of
officers and crew necessary to do so. The captor is not required to
hazard his own vessel in order to bring the prize vessel into port.
Neither is a large prize crew necessary, for it is the duty of the
captured party to assent and to go willingly before the judicial
tribunal which tries the case. Should the captured party express a
determination to use force which there is no reasonable probability
of the captor’s overcoming without too much risk to himself, he may
properly leave the prize vessel to proceed on her voyage and it can not
afterward be objected that she has been deprived of the judicial remedy
which was her due.
Captain Wilkes’s second reason was different from the first, so that
the release of the Trent was voluntary and not made of necessity.
Mr. Seward’s next inquiry was how these explanations by the commander
of the San Jacinto were to affect the British government. His first
observation was that the explanations had not been made to the
authorities of the captured vessel. If they had been so made the
release might have been accepted by the officers of the Trent on
condition of waiving an investigation by a competent court, or such
condition might have been entirely refused. But it was a case with the
British government and not with the officers of the Trent. If it were
claimed by Great Britain that a judicial trial had been lost because
Captain Wilkes had voluntarily released the Trent, out of consideration
for her innocent passengers, he did not see how Great Britain was “to
be bound to acquiesce in the decision which was thus made by us without
necessity on our part, and without knowledge of conditions or consent
on her own. The question between Great Britain and ourselves thus
stated would be a question not of right and of law, but of favor to be
conceded by her to us in return for favors shown by us to her, of the
value of which favors on both sides we ourselves shall be the judge.
Of course the United States could have no thought of raising such a
question in any case.”
That any deliberate wrong in the transaction had been meditated,
practiced, or approved, was disclaimed by Mr. Seward. He said that
“on the contrary what has happened has been simply an inadvertency,
consisting in a departure, by the naval officer, free from any wrongful
motive, from a rule uncertainly established and probably by the several
parties concerned either imperfectly understood or entirely unknown.
For this error the British government has a right to expect the same
reparation that we, as an independent state, should expect from Great
Britain or from any other friendly nation in a similar case.
“I have not been unaware that, in examining this question I have
fallen into an argument for what seems to be the British side of it
against my own country. But I am relieved from all embarrassment
on that subject. I had hardly fallen into that line of argument
when I discovered that I was really defending and maintaining not
an exclusively British interest, but an old, honored and cherished
American cause, not upon British authorities, but upon principles
that constitute a large portion of the distinctive policy by which
the United States have developed the resources of a continent, and,
thus becoming a considerable maritime power, have won the respect and
confidence of many nations. These principles were laid down for us in
1804, by James Madison, when secretary of state in the administration
of Thomas Jefferson in instructions given to James Monroe, our minister
to England.”
A quotation was then inserted from one of Mr. Madison’s dispatches,
in which he said that a belligerent commander is not permitted to
condemn and seize, on the deck of a neutral vessel, property suspected
of being contraband, but that the whole matter must be submitted to a
prize court which can assess damages against the captor for an abuse
of his power; hence it is unreasonable, unjust and inhuman to permit
a naval officer, restricted in the case of mere property of trivial
amount to decide, on the deck of his vessel without any sort of trial,
the question of allegiance, and carry such decision into effect by
forcing every individual he may choose into a service detestable and
humiliating to the impressed seaman and dangerous even to life itself.
Satisfaction was expressed at being able to decide the case upon
strictly American principles, and the statement made that the claim of
the British government had not been made in a discourteous manner.
In coming to the conclusion that it was the duty of the American
government to disavow Captain Wilkes’s act and return the prisoners,
Secretary Seward said: “If the safety of this Union required the
detention of the captured persons, it would be the right and duty of
this government to detain them. But the effectual check and waning
proportions of the existing insurrection, as well as the comparative
unimportance of the captured persons themselves, when dispassionately
weighed, happily forbid me from resorting to this defense.”
Attention was then called to the fact that Great Britain had often
refused to yield claims like the one under consideration, and it was
thought a matter of special congratulation that the British government
had disavowed its former principles and was now contending for what the
United States had always insisted upon.
The last paragraph of the communication read as follows: “The four
persons in question are now held in military custody at Fort Warren in
the state of Massachusetts. They will be cheerfully liberated. Your
lordship will please indicate a time and place for receiving them.”
Such was the answer of Mr. Seward--the reply of the American
government conceding the British demand. Most critics pronounce it
a very able state paper. This judgment is certainly correct if all
things be considered. It was prepared on the briefest notice and in
the fever heat of war time. It was absolutely necessary to yield to
the British demand. The circumstances were such that a refusal to
do this meant national ruin to the United States. Mr. Seward spoke
for an administration already beset by innumerable difficulties and
responsible to a people who were almost unanimously opposed to the
course which the necessities of the case required the government to
pursue. The work of Secretary Seward in this case was very skillfully
done. His course was both politic and wise. He yielded unconditionally
to the demand for the surrender of the commissioners, but, at the same
time, he justified the spirit of Captain Wilkes’s act and was able to
place the surrender solely upon a simple mistake--an error made out of
humane considerations and consequently one which was not deserving
of censure. By showing that, in making the surrender, he was guided
by long cherished American principles, he forestalled the censure and
objections which were certain to come from his own countrymen. But
this was not all. His positions were fortified by vigorous and acute
argument, much of which was apparently unanswerable.
While Mr. Seward deserves the gratitude of his countrymen for having
extricated the nation from a difficulty that was very embarrassing, a
careful examination shows that his letter is not entirely free from
objections and inconsistencies. The entire communication bears the
impress of having been prepared for the special purpose of finding
diplomatic reasons for surrendering the commissioners--as it doubtless
was.
After having established the right to make the capture, Mr. Seward
says that the voluntary or involuntary release of the Trent by
Captain Wilkes must determine the validity of the English claim for
reparation. If the release were voluntary the claim was well founded;
if involuntary the validity of the claim could not be admitted by the
Federal government. One of Captain Wilkes’s reasons for releasing the
British vessel was that he could not spare a prize crew of officers
and men to bring her into port--an involuntary reason of great weight.
The second reason for allowing the Trent to proceed was the desire not
to discommode her numerous innocent passengers--a purely voluntary
proceeding on the part of Captain Wilkes. Here are two equally valid
independent reasons presented for a course pursued. To accept one does
not nullify the other, although it leads, by Mr. Seward’s reasoning, to
a different conclusion. Although the former seems the better reason,
it was discarded in the letter of reply, and the grounds for surrender
based upon the latter consideration, viz: The voluntary release of the
Trent in order not to cause inconvenience to her innocent passengers.
This led to the conclusion that the British claim should be conceded.
It is not easy to understand why the other reason might not have been
accepted and an opposite conclusion reached, unless Mr. Seward desired
to escape from the consequences to which his own logic would lead in
that case.
It is also quite evident that Mr. Seward drew a wrong inference
from the quotation made from Secretary Madison’s dispatch when he
interpreted it to mean that the United States would have quietly
submitted to the assumed British “right of search and seizure,” if
the decrees of impressment had been passed upon American citizens by
the prize courts of England rather than by the naval officers of that
country on the decks at sea. Such a proceeding would not have made
impressment any more acceptable to Americans, and the quotation from
Mr. Madison’s dispatch can not be properly construed to mean that it
would have done so.
Mr. Seward said that the British claim for reparation was “not made in
a discourteous manner.” If British courtesy consisted in pushing armies
into Canada to menace the United States; if it meant the fitting out of
warlike armaments at home with more of haste than had been seen in such
preparations for a third of a century; if it meant an order for Lord
Lyons to leave Washington in one week unless the demands of the English
ministry were complied with fully and completely before the expiration
of that time--then, indeed, the claim was made courteously. If all
this be courtesy, then every American should hope that, in future, his
country may be saved from the courtesy of such friends.
AUTHORITIES AND REFERENCES.
1. Blaine, James G.: Twenty Years of Congress, Vol. II.
2. British Annual Register 1861.
3. Dana’s Wheaton’s International Law, section 504, note.
4. McPherson, Edward: Political History of the Rebellion.
5. North American Review, Vol. XCV.
6. Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of
the Rebellion, Ser. I, Vol. I.
7. Porter, Admiral D. D.: Naval History of the Civil War.
8. Seward, Wm. H.: Works of, Vol. V.
CHAPTER XVII.
THE SURRENDER OF MASON AND SLIDELL.
Mr. Seward’s answer conceding the British demand was very gratifying to
Lord Lyons. On December 27 he acknowledged its receipt and said that
he would immediately send a copy of this “important communication”
to Earl Russell, and that he would at once confer with Mr. Seward
concerning the necessary arrangements for the transfer of the “four
gentlemen” again into British protection. It thus appears that, without
waiting to hear from London, his lordship at once accepted the answer
of the Federal government as a final and satisfactory solution of the
difficulty. Three days after answering Mr. Seward’s letter, Lord Lyons
addressed a note to Commander Hewett, of the English sloop-of-war
Rinaldo, directing him to proceed at once with his vessel to
Provincetown, a small seaport in Massachusetts, about forty miles from
Boston, and receive the released prisoners at that place. His lordship
added at the same time: “It is hardly necessary that I should remind
you that these gentlemen have no official character. It will be right
for you to receive them with all courtesy and respect as gentlemen of
distinction, but it would be improper to pay them any of those honors
which are paid to official persons.” The transfer was directed to
be made “unostentatiously.” Having been conveyed from Fort Warren to
Provincetown in the tug-boat Starlight, the prisoners and their luggage
were put on board the Rinaldo on the evening of January 1, 1862. Their
“only wish,” they said, “was to proceed to Europe.” They were conveyed
without delay to the Danish port of St. Thomas, the place to which
they were proceeding when taken from the Trent by Captain Wilkes.
At St. Thomas they embarked for Europe and reached their respective
destinations without further mishap. The capture and removal of the
envoys to the United States caused a delay of about seventy days in
their journey.
After the surrender had been made and the Confederate emissaries taken
away, the prevalent tone throughout the North still upheld the act of
Captain Wilkes. Temporary expediency was assigned as the only reason
for giving up the men. The validity of the British claim was denied
in many public utterances, in most of which care was taken to reserve
the right of contesting the matter at a future time when the United
States would be better able to do this. The outcome of the whole matter
was looked upon by many public men as a national humiliation. In many
instances there were expressed feelings of the bitterest indignation
toward England and a purpose announced of avenging this insult so
wantonly offered the United States in her hour of deepest distress.
On the afternoon of January 7 the speaker of the house of
representatives laid before that body copies of the correspondence
which had taken place between the secretary of state and the British
government relative to the Trent case. An extended debate followed in
which there was a free expression of opinion concerning the British
demand and the subsequent surrender of the commissioners.
Mr. Vallandigham, of Ohio, thought a mistake had been made in giving up
the men. He said that “for the first time has the American eagle been
made to cower before the British lion.
“Sir, a venal or fettered and terror-stricken press, or servile and
sycophantic politicians in this house, or out of it, may applaud the
act; and may fawn and flatter and lick the hand which has smitten down
our honor into the dust; but the people, now or hereafter, will demand
a terrible reckoning for this most unmanly surrender.”[1]
Mr. Thomas, of Massachusetts, read a carefully prepared speech from
manuscript. Some extracts from it are as follows:
“Complaint of the government would be useless if not groundless. It
was too much to ask of it to take another war on its hands. Possibly
the elaborate and ingenious argument of the secretary might have been
spared. The matter was in a nut-shell; the answer in a word. Take them.
There are duties lying nearer us. We can wait.
“But we are not called upon, Mr. Speaker, to say that the demand was
manly or just. It was unmanly and unjust. It was a demand which, in
view of her history, of the rights she had always claimed and used
as a belligerent power, of the principles which her greatest of
jurists--Lord Stowell--had imbedded in the law of nations, England was
fairly estopped to make.”
Continuing his discussion Mr. Thomas said that England had “done to us
a great wrong in availing herself of our moment of weakness to make
a demand which, accompanied as it was by the pomp and circumstance
of war, was insolent in spirit and thoroughly unjust. It was indeed
courteous in language, but it was the courtesy of Joab to Amasa as he
smote him in the fifth rib: ‘Art thou in health, my brother?’ That
message of Lord Russell to Lord Lyons which could cross the Atlantic
had not projectile force enough to have passed from Dover to Calais.”
In conclusion he said of the course of England: “But the loss will
ultimately be hers. She is treasuring up to herself wrath against the
day of wrath. She has excited in the hearts of this people a deep and
bitter sense of wrong, of injury inflicted at a moment when we could
not respond. It is night with us now, but through the watches of the
night, even, we shall be girding ourselves to strike the blow of
righteous retribution.”
Mr. Wright, of Pennsylvania, said: “I justify the act as I understand
it is justified by the country. Public meetings were everywhere held;
Captain Wilkes was everywhere received with acclaim for the act he had
done; the secretary of the navy--one of the heads of the departments
of this government--approved of that act. I understand the act to have
been approved by the whole government. But in the meantime a state of
things had arisen making it necessary to resort to expediency in this
matter, to save the country from being involved in a war with Europe.
In that view, I would rather surrender these rebel refugees a thousand
times over than to have them the cause of war. Let England take them;
if she has a mind to fete and toast them, let her do it--it is none of
our business; if England desires to make lions of Confederate rebels,
it is a mere matter of taste. If they have to be surrendered then let
them be surrendered under a protest, while we shall remember hereafter
that there is a matter to be canceled between the British government
and the United States of North America.”
Before the close of the debate Mr. Vallandigham took the floor a second
time and stated that under the circumstances he would “prefer a war
with England to the humiliation which we have tamely submitted to; and
I venture the assertion that such a war would have called into the
field five hundred thousand men who are not now there, and never will
be without it, and have developed an energy and power in the United
States which no country has exhibited in modern times, except France,
in her great struggle in 1793.”
A few days after this debate occurred it was proposed in the house to
vote $35,000 to pay the expenses of an exhibit of the United States
at an international exposition which was soon to be held in London.
Mr. Lovejoy, of Illinois, objected to the measure, and said that the
United States had “been insulted, dishonored and disgraced by the
British nation.” Continuing he said: “That disgrace was all that the
nation could bear. We marched up to it ‘sweating great drops of blood.’
We approached it as Christ went up to the cross, saying, ‘if it be
possible, let this cup pass from us.’”
Mr. Lovejoy then said that inasmuch as the United States had submitted
to be dishonored by Great Britain he thought Americans ought to stay
at home until a time should come when they would be able to whip
the British nation. Then he would be willing to appear at a world’s
exhibition in London. He then likened his own grief to that of the
suffering Trojans as related by Æneas to Queen Dido.[2] “Every time
this Trent affair comes up,” said he, “every time that an allusion is
made to it; every time that I have to think of it, that expression of
the tortured and agonized Trojan exile comes to my lips. I am made
to renew the horrible grief which I suffered when the news of the
surrender of Mason and Slidell came. I acknowledge it, I literally
wept tears of vexation. I hate it; and I hate the British government.
I have never shared in the traditional hostility of many of my
countrymen against England. But I now here publicly avow and record
my inextinguishable hatred of that government. I mean to cherish it
while I live, and to bequeath it as a legacy to my children when I die.
And if I am alive when war with England comes, as sooner or later it
must, for we shall never forget this humiliation, and if I can carry a
musket in that war I will carry it. I have three sons, and I mean to
charge them, and do now publicly and solemnly charge them, that if they
shall have at that time reached the years of manhood and strength, they
shall enter into that war. I have always doubted the necessity of that
surrender. We might have, I think, secured an arbitration at least, and
compelled England to have recognized some rule as binding on herself
as the law of nations. This we have not secured. If, however, it was a
necessity, I could have submitted to it. But I have not reached that
exalted sublimation of Christianity which allows me to be insulted and
abused and dishonored without feeling some indignation. * * *
“Sir, I trust in God that the time is not far distant when we shall
have suppressed this rebellion, and be prepared to avenge and wipe
out this insult that we have received. We will then stir up Ireland;
we will appeal to the Chartists of England; we will go to the old
French habitans of Canada; we will join hands with France and Russia
to take away the eastern possessions of that proud empire, and will
darken every jewel that glitters in her diadem. Oh! it was so mean
and cowardly for a nation saying ‘father’ and ‘mother’ in the same
words that we do to come into the house of a brother in the day of his
calamity. I can not away with it.”
On January 6 President Lincoln sent to the senate a message
transmitting copies of the diplomatic correspondence relative to the
Trent case. Three days later the matter was discussed in an extended
speech by Mr. Sumner who ably defended the course of the United States
government in surrendering the commissioners. He held that the act of
Captain Wilkes could be easily vindicated by British precedents, but
that it became very questionable when tried by the liberal principles
which the United States had always avowed and sought to advance with
regard to the sea. He said that the American government, at an early
day, had adopted as its policy the principle that only officers or
soldiers could be stopped, thus positively excluding the idea of
stopping ambassadors or emissaries of any kind while sailing under a
neutral flag. In support of this statement Mr. Sumner reviewed American
diplomatic history from the beginning so far as it touched upon this
question. The doctrine of the United States was fully demonstrated by
quotations from the diplomatic dispatches of Monroe and Madison, also
by reference to the various treaties of the United States with foreign
nations.
“If I am correct in this review,” said Mr. Sumner, “then the conclusion
is inevitable. The seizure of the rebel emissaries on board a neutral
ship can not be justified according to our best American precedents and
practice.
“Mr. President, let the rebels go. Two wicked men, ungrateful to their
country, are let loose with the brand of Cain upon their foreheads.
Prison doors are opened, but principles are established which will help
to free other men, and to open the gates of the sea.”
This speech was timely and effective. It was well received throughout
the North. The newspapers commented upon it in the most favorable terms
and it doubtless did much to influence public sentiment in support of
the surrender.
The news that the British demand had been conceded was a disappointment
to the South. “The concession of Mr. Seward was a blow to the hopes
of the southern people. The contemplation of the spectacle of their
enemy’s humiliation in it was but little compensation for their
disappointment of a European complication in the war. Indeed, the
conclusion of the Trent affair gave a sharp check to the long cherished
imagination of the interference of England in the war, at least to the
extent of her disputing the blockade, which had begun to tell on the
war-power and general condition of the Confederacy.”[3]
The Richmond Examiner, a representative Confederate newspaper, said:
“Never since the humiliation of the Doge and Senate of Genoa before
the footstool of Louis XIV has any nation consented to a degradation
so deep. If Lincoln and Seward intended to give them up at a menace,
why, their people will ask, did they ever capture the ambassadors?
Why the exultant hurrah over the event that went up from nineteen
million throats? Why the glorification of Wilkes? Why the cowardly
insults to two unarmed gentlemen, their close imprisonment, and the
bloodthirsty movements of congress in their regard? But, most of all,
why did the government of Lincoln indulge a full cabinet with an
unanimous resolution that, under no circumstances, should the United
States surrender Messrs. Slidell and Mason? Why did they encourage the
popular sentiment to a similar position? The United States government
and people swore the great oath to stand on the ground they had taken;
the American eagle was brought out; he screeched his loudest screech of
defiance--then
‘Dropt like a craven cock his conquered wing,’
at the first growl of the lion. This is the attitude of the enemy.”
The Canadian press commented upon the release of Mason and Slidell in
the same spirit as did other newspapers that were hostile to the United
States. The Toronto Leader was very abusive and declared that the
surrender was one of “the greatest collapses since the beginning of
time.” The same journal had much to say concerning the “humiliation”
of the Federal government. The Montreal Gazette thought the affair was
a “bitter, bitter pill for the fire-eaters to cram down their noisy
throats.”
In England there was, of course, much rejoicing over the outcome of
the matter. The Federal government had been humbled in the eyes of
the world and British arrogance had triumphed once more. The English
press, including the reviews, generally sustained the course of the
government as being necessary and proper. It was said that in America
the unbridled passions of democracy controlled, that this force was
unyielding and unreasonable, and that a display of military power and
a menace of war was necessary to secure just concessions from such a
country.
The Quarterly Review discussed this matter as follows: “There ought,
then, to have been no difficulty nor demur in disavowing the act
of Captain Wilkes, which, we are told, was not authorized by his
government and of which he ostentatiously took the whole responsibility
upon himself; nor any delay in releasing the prisoners. This is what
we should expect from any other European power. But in America the
pressure of mob opinion was brought to bear with disastrous weight upon
a question the determination of which ought to have been left to the
calm and dispassionate judgment of reflecting men, responsible for the
character which the United States have to maintain in their relations
with foreign powers.”
Continuing his discussion the writer said that the Federal states
“are now undeceived as to the real attitude of England. They must see
that it is dangerous to try her patience too far. Her forbearance
will not be again mistaken for the whispers of fear or attributed to
the dictates of self-interest. We have shown that for the sake of
restoring to the protection of the British flag four strangers--for
whom personally we cared nothing--we were resolved to engage instantly
in war.”[4]
It was then said that those who assailed British honor in future would
know the consequences in advance. “The lesson has been read; we hope
it will be remembered,” continued the writer, “and whatever may now be
said of conciliatory letters it must not be forgotten by ourselves that
until we had evinced this determination by the dispatch of large and
formidable armaments every act of the American government went to show
that they fully intended to retain the prisoners.”[5]
Mr. Gladstone, then a member of the English cabinet, in a public speech
concerning the matter, tauntingly charged the American people with
being unstable and cowardly. He said: “Let us look to the fact that
they are of necessity a people subject to quick and violent action of
opinion, and liable to great public excitement, intensely agreed upon
the subject of the war in which they are engaged, until aroused to a
high pitch of expectation by hearing that one of their vessels of war
had laid hold on the commissioners of the southern states whom they
regarded simply as rebels. Let us look to the fact that in the midst
of that exultation, and in a country where the principles of popular
government and of democracy are carried to the extreme--that even,
however, in this matter of life and death, as they think it to be--that
while ebullitions were taking place all over the country, of joy and
exultation at capture--that even then this popular and democratic
government has, under a demand of a foreign power, written these words,
for they are the closing words in the dispatch of Mr. Seward: ‘The four
commissioners will be cheerfully liberated.’”[6]
In the exultation over the “victory,” as it was called, less notice was
taken of Mason and Slidell personally. Their importance to the British
nation diminished after they were surrendered. It was enough to know
that, under the menace of a foreign war in addition to the domestic
insurrection the United States government had yielded to a peremptory
demand to surrender the prisoners, and that they had actually been
restored to British protection again. The London Star said: “When Mason
and Slidell have been surrendered to us it will surely be time to
declare in what capacity we, as a nation, are to receive them--whether
as the envoys of Mr. Jefferson Davis or as inoffensive visitors to a
country where the rebel slave-owner and fugitive negro are welcome
alike to the protection of the law.” The Times said: “We do sincerely
hope that our countrymen will not give these fellows anything in the
shape of an ovation. The civility that is due to a foe in distress
is all that they can claim. We have returned them good for evil, and
sooth to say, we should be exceedingly sorry that they should ever be
in a situation to choose what return they will make for the good we
have now done them. They are here for their own interests, in order,
if possible, to drag us into their own quarrel, and, but for the
unpleasant contingencies of a prison, rather disappointed, perhaps,
that their detention has not provoked a new war. When they stepped on
board the Trent they did not trouble themselves with the thought of the
mischief they might be doing an unoffending neutral; and if now, by
any less perilous device, they could entangle us in the war, no doubt
they would be only too happy. We trust there is no chance of their
doing this, for, impartial as the British public is in the matter, it
certainly has no prejudice in favor of slavery, which, if anything,
these gentlemen represent. What they and their secretaries are to do
here passes our conjecture. They are personally nothing to us. They
must not suppose, because we have gone to the very verge of a great war
to rescue them, that therefore they are precious in our eyes. We should
have done just as much to rescue two of their own negroes; and had that
been the object of the rescue, the swarthy Pompey and Cæsar would have
had just the same right to triumphal arches and municipal addresses as
Messrs. Mason and Slidell. So, please, British public, let’s have none
of these things. Let the commissioners come up quietly to town and have
their say with anybody who may have time to listen to them. For our
part, we can not see how anything they have to tell can turn the scale
of British duty and deliberation. There have been so many cases of
peoples and nations establishing an actual independence, and compelling
the recognition of the world, that all we have to do is what we have
done before, up to the very last year. This is now a simple matter of
precedent. Our statesmen and lawyers know quite as much on the subject
as Messrs. Mason and Slidell, and are in no need of their information
or advice.”[7]
When the commissioners were surrendered, a portion of the British
troops dispatched to Canada to menace the United States had not yet
arrived. With a stroke of the wit which often characterized his dealing
with his opponents, Mr. Seward proceeded to inform the British consul
at Portland, Maine, that these troops would be permitted to land at
that city and pass freely through the territory of the United States
by rail to their destination, thus avoiding the risk and suffering
incident to a passage by the Canadian route beset by the snow and ice
of an inclement midwinter season.
AUTHORITIES AND REFERENCES.
1. Congressional Globe, 2d Session 37th Congress.
2. London Quarterly Review, No. 221.
3. Lossing, B. J.: The Civil War in America, Vol. II.
4. Magazine of American History, March, 1886.
5. Newspapers, January, 1862, as follows: Richmond Examiner, Toronto
Leader, Montreal Gazette, London Star, London Times.
6. Paris, Compte de: History of the Civil War in America.
7. Pollard, E. A.: The Lost Cause.
8. Southern Law Review, Vol. VIII.
9. Sumner, Charles: Speech in the U. S. Senate, January 9, 1862.
10. Sumner, Charles: Works of, Vol. VII.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Mr. Vallandigham’s motive was probably different from that of any
other speaker on that occasion. See note, page 180.
[2] See the Æneid, Book II, line 3: “Infandum, regina, jubes renovare
dolorem,” etc.
[3] Pollard’s Lost Cause, p. 197.
[4] London Quarterly Review, No. 221, pp. 273-274.
[5] London Quarterly Review, No. 221, pp. 273-274.
[6] Speech at Edinburgh, January, 1862.
[7] See London Times, Jan. 11, 1862.
CHAPTER XVIII.
EARL RUSSELL’S VIEW OF THE AMERICAN POSITION.
On January 10, 1862, Lord Russell addressed a note to Lord Lyons
stating that her majesty’s government had carefully considered how
far Mr. Seward’s note and its concessions complied with the British
demand. He then recited the fact that the Federal government had
agreed to an unconditional surrender of the prisoners, that Captain
Wilkes had acted entirely without instructions, and that the secretary
of state expressly forebore to justify the act complained of. His
lordship also said that if the United States government had sanctioned
the unauthorized act of Captain Wilkes, it would thereby have become
responsible for “the original violence and insult” offered; but
that Mr. Seward had stated that what had happened had been only “an
inadvertency consisting in a departure by a naval officer, free
from any wrongful motive, from a rule uncertainly established, and
probably by the several parties concerned either imperfectly understood
or entirely unknown; and that reparation was justly due.” Earl
Russell said that her majesty’s government had carefully taken into
consideration the surrender of the prisoners, the delivery of them
again into British hands, and also the explanations of Mr. Seward--all
of which constituted the desired redress. His lordship said that her
majesty’s government differed, however, from many of the conclusions
which Mr. Seward had arrived at in his discussion of the international
law points in the case, and that these differences would be fully
presented in a future dispatch.
Accordingly, on January 23, 1862, Earl Russell addressed a dispatch
to Lord Lyons in which the differences were fully discussed. The
only ground upon which a foreign government could treat the matter,
according to Lord Russell’s view, was upon the supposition that the
captured persons were not rebels but only enemies of the United States
at war with its government, hence the discussion was to be confined
solely to the principles of international law involved.
The first inquiry that arose was whether the commissioners and
their supposed dispatches were contraband of war or not. “Upon this
question,” said his lordship, “Her majesty’s government differ entirely
from Mr. Seward. The general right and duty of a neutral power to
maintain its own communications and friendly relations with both
belligerents can not be disputed.”
In support of this proposition it was held that a neutral nation has
certain duties to perform toward both parties at war, that it may have
most direct and material interests in the performance of such duties on
both sides, and especially was this true when its citizens, resident
both there and at home, have valuable property in the territories of
both belligerents. Such property may be exposed to acts of violence or
confiscation, if the protection of the neutral government be withheld,
and this, in his lordship’s opinion, was “the case with respect to
British subjects” in the civil war then existing in the United States.
The opinion was expressed that a neutral had the right to maintain
necessary relations with both belligerents. This being true it would
follow that a neutral, carrying diplomatic persons or dispatches of
one belligerent, would not be guilty of an act of hostility toward
the other party at war, and that this principle applied with equal
force to the diplomatic agents of an unrecognized power. Various texts
and precedents were then quoted in support of the foregoing opinion,
after which his lordship said: “It appears to her majesty’s government
to be a necessary and certain deduction from these principles that
the conveyance of public agents of this character from Havana to
St. Thomas, on their way to Great Britain and France, and of their
credentials and dispatches (if any) on board the Trent, was not and
could not be a violation of the duties of neutrality on the part
of that vessel, and, both for that reason and, also, because the
destination of these persons and of their dispatches was _bona fide_
neutral, it is, in the judgment of her majesty’s government, clear and
certain that they were not contraband.”
The nature of contraband of war was then explained and it was held that
articles of that nature must always have a hostile and not a neutral
destination. “On what just principle,” said Lord Russell, “can it be
contended that a hostile destination is less necessary, or a neutral
destination more noxious, for constituting a contraband character in
the case of public agents or dispatches than in the case of arms and
ammunition?” Mr. Seward had endeavored to sustain his own conclusion
by quoting from Sir William Scott whose opinion was based upon the
doctrines of Vattel. His lordship held that Mr. Seward had wrongly
interpreted the quotations. Reasons were then given for a different
construction, and the conclusion reached that “no writer of authority
has ever suggested that an ambassador proceeding to a neutral state on
board one of its merchant ships is contraband of war.”
The rule deduced from the texts and precedents as explained by Earl
Russell was “that you may stop an enemy’s ambassador in any place of
which you are yourself the master, or in any other place where you have
a right to exercise acts of hostility. Your own territory, or ships of
your own country, are places of which you are yourself the master. The
enemy’s territory or the enemy’s ships are places in which you have
a right to exercise acts of hostility. Neutral vessels guilty of no
violation of the laws of neutrality are places where you have no right
to exercise acts of hostility.”
“It would be an inversion of the doctrine that ambassadors have
peculiar privileges to argue that they are less protected than other
men. The right conclusion is, that an ambassador sent to a neutral
power is inviolable on the high seas, as well as in neutral waters,
while under the protection of the neutral flag.”
Mr. Seward had stated that the circumstance that the Trent was
proceeding from one neutral port to another neutral port did not modify
the belligerent right of capture, as based upon British authorities.
This was disputed by his lordship, who said: “It is undoubtedly the law
as laid down by British authorities that if the real destination of
the vessel be hostile (that is, to the enemy, or the enemy’s country),
it can not be covered and rendered innocent by a fictitious destination
to a neutral port. But if the real terminus of the voyage be _bona
fide_ in a neutral territory, no English, nor, indeed, as her majesty’s
government believe, any American authority can be found which has
ever given countenance to the doctrine that either men or dispatches
can be subject, during such a voyage, and on board such a neutral
vessel, to belligerent capture as contraband of war. Her majesty’s
government regard such a doctrine as wholly irreconcilable with the
true principles of maritime law, and certainly with those principles as
they have been understood in the courts of this country.”
It was then observed that packet ships carrying mails, while not exempt
from visit and search in time of war nor from the penalties of any
violation of neutrality when proved guilty, were still entitled to
the special favor and protection of their governments, and should not
be detained or disturbed or interfered with unless there should be
excellent reasons for doing so.
Earl Russell held that, if Mr. Seward’s doctrine were true, “any packet
ship carrying a Confederate agent from Dover to Calais, or from Calais
to Dover, might be captured and carried to New York. In case of a war
between Austria and Italy, the conveyance of an Italian minister or
agent might cause the capture of a neutral packet plying between Malta
and Marseilles, or between Malta and Gibraltar, the condemnation of the
ship at Trieste, and the confinement of the minister or agent in an
Austrian prison. So in the late war between Great Britain and France
on the one hand, and Russia on the other, a Russian minister going
from Hamburg to Washington in an American ship might have been brought
to Portsmouth, the ship might have been condemned, and the minister
sent to the Tower of London. So also a Confederate vessel-of-war might
capture a Cunard steamer on its way from Halifax to Liverpool, on the
ground of its carrying dispatches from Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. In
view, therefore, of the erroneous principles asserted by Mr. Seward,
and the consequences they involve, her majesty’s government think it
necessary to declare that they would not acquiesce in the capture of
any British merchant ship in circumstances similar to those of the
Trent, and the fact of its being brought before a prize court, though
it would alter the character, would not diminish the gravity of the
offense against the law of nations which would thereby be committed.”
His lordship thought that the disposition of the question concerning
the contraband nature of the men and the dispatches rendered
unnecessary any discussion of the other questions raised by Mr. Seward,
although notice was taken of the latter’s assertion that if the safety
of the Union required the detention of the commissioners, it would
be the right and duty of the Federal government to detain them, but
happily the waning proportions of the insurrection, and the comparative
unimportance of the captured persons themselves forbade a resort to
that defense. To this a haughty reply was made, as follows: “Mr. Seward
does not here assert any right founded on international law, however
inconvenient or irritating to neutral nations; he entirely loses sight
of the vast difference which exists between the exercise of an extreme
right and the commission of an unquestionable wrong. His frankness
compels me to be equally open, and to inform him that Great Britain
could not have submitted to the perpetration of that wrong, however
flourishing might have been the insurrection in the South, and however
important the persons captured might have been.”
In conclusion his lordship expressed a hope that similar dangers,
should they arise, might be settled by peaceful negotiations, and
requested that “this dispatch” be read to Mr. Seward and a copy of
it furnished him. Such was the formal rejoinder of her majesty’s
government to Mr. Seward’s letter conceding the British demand. It
was not to be expected that silence would be maintained or that the
doctrines of the American secretary of state would be acquiesced in.
To pursue either of these courses would have been for the British
government to concede too much, and in the estimation of itself, to
lose dignity in the eye of the world.
AUTHORITIES AND REFERENCES.
1. British Annual Register, 1861.
2. Dana’s Wheaton’s International Law, section 504, note.
3. Magazine of American History, June, 1886.
4. McPherson’s Political History of the Rebellion.
5. North American Review, Vol. XCV, pp. 35-50.
6. Wharton’s Digest of the International Law of the U. S. This is
Senate Mis. Doc. No. 162, Part 3, 49 Cong., 1st Sess.
CHAPTER XIX.
INTERNATIONAL LAW IN THE TRENT CASE.
In any discussion of the Trent case from the standpoint of
international law, all purely political phases of the matter should be
omitted. That the captured persons were dangerous enemies of the United
States, that they were going to Europe to secure aid in the destruction
of the American Union, that the British demand for their surrender
was backed by extensive preparations for war, that a refusal to give
up the men meant a conflict with England and a permanently divided
republic--these are all matters not easy to leave out of consideration.
They have no place, however, in this chapter, since they can have no
bearing upon the principles of international law which are applicable
to this case.
It may be safely assumed that the right of a belligerent to proceed
against a neutral in any given case depends upon the legality of the
act of the neutral which it is proposed to call in question. The law
of nations forbids a neutral to perform for either belligerent any
service which will aid in conducting hostilities. Among the acts thus
prohibited may be mentioned the transportation of either officers or
dispatches when they are of a military character; also soldiers, arms,
ammunition and other things which are classed as contraband of war.
Knowingly to violate this law renders a neutral ship liable to capture
and confiscation.
If these premises be correctly stated, it follows that the legality
of the course of the Trent will settle the question as to what
Captain Wilkes had a right to do in this case. The first matter to
be considered then is whether the law of nations was violated when
the Confederate commissioners with their secretaries and dispatches
were knowingly received on board the Trent at Havana and allowed to
proceed toward their destination. If these men and their dispatches
were contraband of war by the law of nations, it follows that the
vessel which carried them was liable to seizure and condemnation by the
Federal authorities.
In his letter conceding the British demand Mr. Seward discussed this
matter and arrived at the conclusion that the commissioners and
their dispatches were contraband. He said: “All writers and judges
pronounce naval or military persons in the service of the enemy
contraband. Vattel says war allows us to cut off from an enemy all of
his resources, and to hinder him from sending ministers to solicit
assistance. And Sir William Scott says you may stop the ambassador of
your enemy on his passage. Dispatches are not less clearly contraband,
and the bearers or couriers who undertake to carry them fall under the
same condemnation.” Mr. Seward also held that “pretended ministers of
a usurping power, not recognized as legal by either the belligerent
or the neutral,” were none the less contraband and, in support of his
position, quoted from Sir William Scott, who had once expressed an
opinion upon the matter, as follows: “It appears to me on principle to
be but reasonable that when it is of sufficient importance to the enemy
that such persons shall be sent out on the public service at the public
expense, it should afford equal ground of forfeiture against the vessel
that may be let out for a purpose so intimately connected with the
hostile operations.”
Vattel, whom Mr. Seward quotes in support of his position that
ambassadors of an enemy may be cut off, wrote at a time when many
principles of international law were not fully settled. His doctrines
were in accordance with the illiberal ideas of international comity
which prevailed in that age. The passage referred to by Mr. Seward
reads as follows, when carefully translated from the original French:
“His (the enemy’s) people may also be attacked and seized wherever we
have a right to commit acts of hostility. Not only, therefore, may
we justly refuse a passage to the ministers whom our enemies send to
other sovereigns; we may even arrest them if they attempt to pass
privately and without permission through places belonging to our
jurisdiction.”[1] To illustrate his meaning more fully Vattel then
gives an instance of what he regards as a lawful arrest, viz.: that of
Marshall Belle-Isle, a French minister who was arrested in 1744 while
passing through Hanover. He was seized by the troops of George II, who
was then at war with France. As George II of England was also ruler of
Hanover, he had a right to make the seizure in his own territory.
It is evident that Vattel means to limit the right to seize the
ambassador of an enemy, and that in his opinion this right can be
exercised only where one has a “right to commit acts of hostility.”
This can not be done on the deck of a neutral ship unless there is
sufficient cause for such a proceeding. If the Trent had been conveying
troops to the Confederates, or if she had escaped through a Federal
blockading squadron, she would then have become liable to seizure, and
acts of hostility could have been exercised against her by Captain
Wilkes. Since she had been guilty of nothing of this character, it
is evident that the only ground for proceeding against her was the
assumption that the Confederate ambassadors were on board her and that
their presence there gave to her a hostile character. But the latter
fact is the test of right--a thing which we are not warranted in
assuming. A neutral vessel is not a place over which one can exercise
acts of hostility, unless there be evidences of a breach of neutrality.
It is not a place “over which one is master.” The mere fact that
ambassadors of a hostile power are on board a neutral vessel is not
of itself evidence of a breach of neutrality. If Captain Wilkes had
made the arrest in one of the southern blockaded harbors, or if he
had intercepted the Theodora and captured the commissioners, the act
would have been, in either case, entirely in accordance with Vattel’s
rule, but, as it was, there is certainly much room for doubt. The legal
_status_ of the commissioners, or the rights of a Federal naval officer
toward them while on board a Confederate vessel or in a southern
harbor, was quite different from their _status_ on a neutral deck.
When Sir William Scott said, as asserted by Mr. Seward, that you may
stop the ambassador of your enemy on his passage, the opinion was only
a quotation from Vattel and was prefaced by the assertion that “you
may exercise your right of war against them (ambassadors) wherever the
character of hostility exists.”[2] The ambassador of an enemy may be
captured, then, only in those places where you can exercise acts of
hostility. Mr. Seward’s isolated quotation conveys a meaning different
from that of the passage taken as a whole.
From the case of the Orozembo[3] (1807) Mr. Seward concludes that
persons in the civil employ of a government may be captured on the
passage, and that, when sent out at public expense, they may be seized,
whether their government be a recognized one or not.
The Orozembo was an American vessel which went from Rotterdam to Lisbon
and there took in three Dutch military officers of distinction; also
two persons to be employed in a civil capacity at Batavia--the place
to which the vessel was proceeding, although she falsely held out as
her destination Macao, another and neutral port. It also appeared
that she was under contract with the Dutch government to carry for
a consideration such persons as might be designated, without regard
to number. She thus became a transport ship under the control of the
enemy, let to do hostile service. During the term of her contract she
was subject to the orders of an enemy; her voyage in this instance
began at a hostile port; it was to end at a port of the same enemy. An
attempt was made to conceal these facts.
Such were the circumstances in the case which led to the condemnation
of the Orozembo. The conditions under which the voyage was made and
the presence on board her of three distinguished military officers
would have been sufficient cause for condemnation, without taking into
account the fact that she carried two officers in the civil employ of
Holland. After announcing the principle that “a vessel hired by the
enemy for the conveyance of military persons is to be considered a
transport subject to condemnation,” Sir William Scott says, “whether
the principle would apply to them alone (civil officers) I do not feel
it necessary to determine.” He then uses the language quoted by Seward.
The passage referred to by Mr. Seward is only a _dictum_--a personal
opinion of the judge--and is not to be understood or construed as an
established principle of public law. An able writer of international
law says of this quotation: “Even as a _dictum_, it does not touch the
case of a neutral vessel not let out as a transport, and merely having
civil officers of a belligerent government on board, without other
circumstances tending to show the vessel herself to be in the enemy’s
service.”[4]
It appears, then, from a careful consideration of the authorities
relied upon by Mr. Seward to establish the contraband character of the
men, that his conclusion is not warranted.
He also held that the dispatches of the Confederate commissioners were
contraband and their bearers liable to condemnation. No reason for
this opinion was given save the relation of the supposed contents of
the dispatches to the errand of Messrs. Mason and Slidell abroad. The
only knowledge of the nature or even the existence of these dispatches
was based upon information of their arrival in Europe furnished by the
United States consul at Paris.[5] In the case of the Rapid (1810), an
American vessel proceeding from New York to Tonningen, both neutral
ports, it was held that where a neutral vessel not in the employ of
an enemy transports noxious dispatches while pursuing her regular
employment, her guilt depends upon the act of her master or those in
charge of her, in receiving such communications. In such cases Sir
William Scott laid down the rule that “the caution must be proportioned
to the circumstances under which such papers are received.”
It was held that when each terminus of the voyage is a neutral port
“there is less to excite his vigilance.”[6] Even this rule is relaxed
in the case of diplomatic dispatches.[7] A more stringent rule would
subject neutral vessels to a most irksome surveillance, and greatly
disturb mail communications, since not even a single letter could be
accepted with safety.
The case of the Caroline has already been cited. This was the case of
an American vessel which was captured while proceeding from New York
to Bordeaux in 1808. She carried a dispatch from the French minister
in the United States to his own government. Sir William Scott held in
this instance that diplomatic dispatches are not contraband of war,
since they are not presumed to partake of a hostile nature. It is true
that they may be so, but the remedy is not the capture of the ship. The
redress must be political and diplomatic.
The case of the Atalanta[8] has been cited as one where diplomatic
dispatches were regarded as contraband of war. There are, however, many
points of difference between the case of this vessel and that of the
Trent. The Atalanta was a neutral vessel which carried dispatches of an
official character. They were in charge of the supercargo who planned
to conceal them, and actually did this when his vessel was boarded
and searched by a British cruiser. The noxious papers were discovered
only by accident. This vessel also carried a French artillery officer
who was disguised as a planter, and who was the real bearer of the
dispatches. These facts having been proved, Sir William Scott held
that the vessel was answerable for the acts of her supercargo, who
had refused to grant, in good faith, the right of search, and had
fraudulently concealed the dispatches which were on board. It was
decided that, by such a course, the officer of the ship “lends himself
to effect a communication the enemy may cut off; under protection of
an ostensible neutral character, he does in fact place himself in the
service of the enemy’s state.” The many points of difference between
this case, then, and the one under consideration are quite apparent.
In Mr. Seward’s letter conceding the demands of Great Britain, he held
that the circumstance that the Trent was proceeding from one neutral
port to another neutral port was not proof of her innocence, and
that it in no way modified the right of the captor. He said that he
read British authorities to this effect. Lord Russell thought this a
remarkable passage in Mr. Seward’s letter, and held that the fact that
both _termini_ of the voyage were not only ostensibly but _bona fide_
neutral was conclusive evidence of the innocence of the vessel. There
is certainly no good reason why this should be the rule in such cases,
and if the matter is to be determined by British precedent, Mr. Seward
was correct in his assumption. The case of the Rapid (already referred
to) may be cited as one directly in point. In this instance the voyage
began at a neutral port, and was to end at another neutral port. The
Rapid was released, but this was done solely on the ground that her
master had not been at fault in receiving the noxious papers for
transmission. He had, in fact, exercised all of the legal caution that
was necessary in receiving them on board his ship. He had no knowledge
of their contents. If, in 1810, British law regarded as innocent every
vessel plying between neutral ports, this would have been conclusive
in favor of the Rapid, without any inquiry whatever into the conduct
of her master. The fact of neutral _termini_ of her voyage would
undoubtedly have been the ground of her release, if Sir William Scott
had understood this to be British law at that time. Since he did not so
decide, the only inference which can be drawn from his course is that
he did not understand such to be the law.
Dana, in discussing the probable decision of an American prize court,
concerning this matter, says: “As the official character of these
persons, the general nature of their mission, and the probable general
character of their papers, and the _termini_ of their journey, were
well known to the persons in charge of the Trent, and they took them on
board knowingly and voluntarily to frank them under the neutral flag
over a part of their hazardous passage, there can be no doubt that
the fate of the Trent would have been the same, whether her _termini_
were neutral or hostile ports.”[9] Contrary opinions, however, are not
difficult to find. An eminent American authority says: “The character
of the vessel (_i. e._, the Trent) as a packet ship conveying mails
and passengers from one neutral port to another, almost precluded the
possibility of guilt. Even if hostile military persons had been found
on board, it might be a question whether their presence would involve
the ship in guilt, as they were going from a neutral country to a
neutral country.”[10]
As an example of an opinion in which this same doctrine is carried to
the extreme, that of M. Hautefeuille may be mentioned. He sustains Lord
Russell’s position and declares without reserve that the sailing of a
neutral vessel between two neutral ports is absolute and conclusive
evidence in her favor.[11] This, however, is only a personal opinion
not based upon judicial precedent, and hence, not worthy of special
consideration.
The sounder rule of international law, as deduced from the practice of
both English and American prize courts, seems to be that the fact of
the sailing of a neutral vessel between two neutral ports is not to be
regarded as an indifferent matter in determining the question of her
guilt or innocence. It is always an evidence in favor of the neutral,
although not by any means a conclusive one.
The Queen’s neutrality proclamation, issued at the beginning of
the war, forbade her majesty’s subjects from “carrying officers,
soldiers, _dispatches_, arms, military stores,” etc., for either of
the contending parties. It has been held that this alone would have
been sufficient to decide the case against the Trent. Such a view of
the matter is, however, not correct. The term “_dispatches_,” as used
in the proclamation, evidently means those of a military nature only,
since it is enumerated along with other words used to define operations
of that kind. The language does not express or even imply any relation
to communications of a diplomatic nature.
It was not the design or intent of the proclamation to lay down any new
international law, but only to warn British subjects against the things
already forbidden by the law of nations and by the statutes of Great
Britain. It was simply an application of these various laws to the
existing _status_ of the belligerents.
Diplomatic persons are, by the law of nations, entitled to the
special favor and protection of governments. Since Messrs. Mason and
Slidell were the representatives of an unrecognized insurgent power,
the question arises as to whether they were entitled to any of the
immunities and privileges uniformly extended to diplomatic ministers.
There is no judicial decision which bears even remotely upon a matter
of this kind. On the one hand it may be said that the government
represented by these men had received no sort of recognition except
that of belligerency. Their mission was not the usual one of diplomatic
representatives who conduct the friendly and established diplomacy of
sovereign nations, but it was to obtain foreign aid for an insurrection
in America, and to become recognized ministers abroad, should the
independence of the Confederacy be established.
On the other hand it may be argued that where an insurgent power has
been recognized as a belligerent, this carries with it the right to
maintain at least informal relations with foreign states whose subjects
may have extensive material interests in the insurgent state or be
temporary residents of it. The interest and convenience of foreign
nations require this. To cut off all diplomatic communication, even of
an informal character, in such cases, would be to declare a practical
outlawry against a nation already in possession of the rights of
belligerents. Such a course would also prevent any new nation from ever
becoming recognized as sovereign and independent. Informal diplomatic
relations must precede formal ones, and if the former be entirely cut
off, how can the latter be established at all? Informal diplomatic
relations were held between the representatives of the South American
republics and the United States government, prior to the recognition
of the independence of the former.[12] If a diplomatic agent of one
of these insurgent republics had embarked on a United States merchant
vessel at some neutral foreign port, with the design of coming to New
York, and if this vessel had been stopped by a Spanish man-of-war, and
the diplomatic agent forcibly removed, or if the American ship had been
captured for no other reason than the presence on board her of such an
emissary, it is doubtful whether the United States government would
have quietly acquiesced in either of these proceedings.
If it be conceded that informal diplomatic relations may be held
between an unrecognized government and a foreign state, this would seem
to carry with it the right to whatever of immunity is necessary to make
such relations effective. Whenever an international law court shall
be called upon to decide this question, it will have to be done upon
principle and without the aid of a judicial precedent.
In considering the question as to whether the Confederate commissioners
were contraband of war or not, Captain Wilkes’s theory that they were
“the embodiment of dispatches” or “living epistles,” deserves a brief
notice. It was only a cleverly devised fiction of public law, and of no
value. It has never received any recognition whatever from official or
authoritative sources. Dr. Woolsey says: “It is simply absurd to say
that these men were living dispatches.”[13] Count de Gasparin says:
“The doctrine of _man dispatches_ is the weak side of the American
argument. In such a matter, it is not permissible to extend by force
of reasoning, or even _a fortiori_, the categories fixed by the law of
nations.”[14]
Captain Wilkes had an undoubted right to stop and search the Trent for
contraband of war. Officially, it was neither denied nor complained of
by the British government. Writers on international law are practically
unanimous in their support of the doctrine that a belligerent cruiser
may search neutral ships for contraband, in time of war. This is a
right that is both just and necessary, since it is the only way by
which the belligerent may ascertain beyond doubt whether the neutral is
performing contraband service for an enemy.
In the beginning of this discussion it was stated that the right of
Captain Wilkes to capture the Trent depended upon the legality of her
act in carrying the men and their dispatches, and that this, in turn,
depended upon their contraband character. When Mr. Seward assumed that
they were contraband, the burden of proof rested upon him. He appealed
to British authorities only in support of his position. If the present
examination of these authorities has shown that Mr. Seward’s position
was untenable and that the men were not contraband of war, it follows
that Captain Wilkes had no right to capture the Trent, unless there
were other reasons for such a procedure. If no such right existed
then, clearly, no right was waived--as claimed by Mr. Seward--when she
was permitted to proceed upon her journey instead of being brought
into port for adjudication. If the men and their dispatches were not
contraband of war, there appears to be no valid reason for the capture.
It can not be held that the United States had the right to seize them
as an exercise of ocean police powers, such as England practiced a half
century before when she took out of neutral ships men of pretended
English birth. Any such position was disclaimed by Mr. Seward, and it
is a matter of history that the United States has always denied the
existence of such a right.
Neither can it be pretended that the seizure was justifiable because
the men were rebels or political offenders, no matter what the relation
of their government was to the other governments of the world. The
United States has always maintained the right of asylum for this class
of men, and the right of a foreign power to do this in the case of
American offenders could not be consistently denied. A criminal or
a traitor can not be taken from the protection of a neutral foreign
flag except in accordance with the provisions of a treaty between the
powers providing for the extradition of such offenders according to
forms of law.
If, independently of the fact that the commissioners and their
dispatches were on board, there had existed any valid reason for
seizing the Trent and bringing her into port, this course could have
been pursued, and, as soon as she had entered American waters, these
men, being citizens of the United States, would have been amenable to
the laws of their country. Their arrest and imprisonment then would
have been entirely legal. It would have been, in that case, only an
incidental matter which could be in no way connected with the capture
and detention of the vessel upon which they traveled.
If the Trent had been brought into port, a prize court would have met
with difficulties in adjusting the case. Maritime law deals only _in
rem_, that is, with things or property, not with persons. The ship and
her cargo would have been either condemned as prize or released with an
award of damages to her owners. But whatever the decision of the court
concerning the vessel and her cargo, the _status_ of Messrs. Mason
and Slidell would have been precisely the same. Dana, in reviewing
this matter, says that under these circumstances they “could not be
condemned or released by the court. They would doubtless have been held
as prisoners of war by the United States government. In the event of a
decision favorable to the captors, the case of the persons would still
be a diplomatic one.”[15]
If American doctrine had been consulted, Mr. Seward could have found in
it nothing to sustain his views concerning the contraband character of
the men and their dispatches. The United States government, from the
earliest period of its history, had pursued a maritime policy entirely
different from that sustained by Mr. Seward in his dispatch conceding
the British demand for the surrender of Messrs. Mason and Slidell. The
doctrine, announced by the founders of the American republic in their
earliest state papers and steadily adhered to thereafter, was not left
to the uncertainties of maritime court decisions, but was put into the
form of positive law and made a special part of the treaty stipulations
with foreign countries. In the very first treaty ever made by the
United States with a foreign power, namely, the one negotiated with
France by Benjamin Franklin in 1778, it was provided that no class of
persons should be taken out of a free ship except “soldiers in actual
service of an enemy.” This same doctrine was re-affirmed in an unbroken
line of treaties--eighteen in number--negotiated with foreign countries
prior to the period of the civil war.
In all of these treaties it was expressly provided that nothing should
be considered as contraband of war except the things therein specified
and enumerated. Non-military dispatches were not enumerated in the
list of contraband, and hence could not be classed as such. It is true
that the language of these treaty stipulations had never been passed
upon by any American courts of admiralty, but nothing of this kind was
necessary, for the terms used were so definite and precise that no
other construction could possibly have been placed upon them. British
prize courts passed upon the guilt or innocence of the American ships
referred to in this chapter, because there was no treaty between the
two countries by which contraband of war was defined in precise terms.
Where no such treaties existed between these two countries, it can
not be held that anything is positively proved by the argument here
offered, but the conclusion to be drawn by analogy is self-evident.
It would have been more consistent with the past record of American
diplomacy, if the release of the Confederate commissioners had
been made upon the ground that the law of nations, as understood
and interpreted by the United States government, does not permit a
belligerent to take from a free neutral ship either non-military
dispatches or any class of persons except officers or soldiers in the
actual service of the enemy. It is to be regretted that the men were
surrendered upon the ground that although they and their dispatches
were contraband, yet the right to retain them had been forfeited when
Captain Wilkes voluntarily released the Trent instead of bringing her
into port for adjudication.
The following general conclusions seem to be warranted from a careful
examination of the Trent case:
1. The commissioners were not contraband of war in any sense of that
term.
2. Their dispatches being of a non-military character were not
contraband of war.
3. A neutral power is entitled to hold necessary informal relations
with an unrecognized belligerent.
4. The Trent had in no way violated her duties as a neutral ship when
she was stopped by the San Jacinto.
5. Captain Wilkes had an undoubted right to stop and search the Trent
for contraband of war. In the absence of anything of this character,
only resistance to the right of search would have made the Trent
liable to capture. As a matter of fact her captain did refuse all
facilities for search and made it known that he yielded only to
superior force. What view a prize court might have taken of this can be
only a matter of conjecture.
6. In any event Captain Wilkes had no right to seize the persons or
dispatches of the Confederate commissioners while they were on board
the Trent on the high seas.
7. Viewed solely from the standpoint of international law, sound
reasons were not given for the surrender of the commissioners by
Secretary Seward.
Mr. Blaine says: “It is not believed that the doctrine announced by Mr.
Seward can be maintained on sound principles of international law. The
restoration of the envoys on any such apparently insufficient basis did
not avoid the mortification of the surrender; it only deprived us of
the fuller credit and advantage which we might have secured from the
act. It is to be regretted that we did not place the restoration of the
prisoners upon franker and truer ground, viz., that their seizure was
in violation of the principles which we would not abandon either for a
temporary advantage or to save the wounding of our national pride.”[16]
Viewed from any standpoint Mr. Seward’s position is untenable. If
it had prevailed and had been fully recognized as a doctrine of
international law, a backward step in maritime affairs would have been
taken. Instead of enlarged rights for neutrals and a greater freedom
upon the ocean, there would have been a return toward the narrow and
illiberal maritime policy which prevailed during the Napoleonic wars.
Reprisals would have been invited; naval commanders everywhere would
have been transformed into admiralty judges; and every neutral deck
would have been liable to be changed into “a floating judgment-seat.”
American maritime policy and principle would have been reversed.
The right to capture the Confederate commissioners seemed very dear
to the people of the North. By the surrender of the captured persons,
all of the immediate results of the seizure were lost. Although the
sacrifice seemed a grievous one, yet the apparently unfavorable outcome
of the whole matter, from the standpoint of international law, was
a benefit not only to the United States but to the world. It was a
vindication of the principle for which America had always contended.
England having committed herself to the American doctrine, it became,
in this unexpected manner, firmly and forever imbedded in the
principles of international law. A triumph was thus realized, for there
remained not a single nation in all the world to dispute this principle.
AUTHORITIES AND REFERENCES.
1. Adams, J. Q.: Memoirs, Vol. V.
2. Admiralty Reports, Edwards’s and Robinson’s.
3. American Law Review, Vol. V.
4. Bernard, Montague: Neutrality of Great Britain during the American
Civil War.
5. Blaine, James G.: Twenty Years of Congress, Vol. I.
6. Dana’s Wheaton’s International Law.
7. Edinburgh Review, January, 1862.
8. Grotius: De Jure Belli et Pacis.
9. Hall, W. E.: International Law.
10. Hautefeuille, M.: Questions of Maritime International Law.
11. Hunt’s Merchant Magazine, Vol. XLVI.
12. Marquardsen, Heinrich Dr.: Der Trent Fall.
13. North American Review, January, 1862, and July, 1862.
14. Nys, M.: La Guerre Maritime, p. 46.
15. Quarterly Review, January, 1862.
16. Seward, W. H.: Works of, Vol. V.
17. Southern Law Review, Vol. VIII.
18. Sumner, Charles: Speech in U. S. Senate, Jan. 9, 1862.
19. Westminster Review, January, 1862.
20. Woolsey, T. D.: Introduction to the Study of International Law.
21. Wharton, Francis: Digest of the International Law of the United
States.
22. Vattel, M.: The Law of Nations, Book IV.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Vattel, Book IV, chapter 7, section 85. As further evidence that
the older writers on international law did not hold to the doctrine
that an ambassador may be arrested on neutral territory, Grotius may
be quoted. He says: “Aliud sit si, quis extra fines suos, insidias
ponat legatis alienis; eo enim jus gentium violarentur.” De Jure Belli
et Pacis, Lib. II, cap. 18, sec. 5. Translated as follows by Sir T.
Twiss: “It is quite another thing, if any prince shall out of his own
territory contrive to surprise the ambassadors of another state, for
this would be a direct breach of the law of nations.”
[2] Case of the Caroline, 6 Robinson’s Admiralty Reports, pp. 467, 468.
[3] See 6 Robinson’s Adm. Rep., 430.
[4] See Wheaton’s International Law, edited by Dana, note, page 641.
[5] The commissioners had official dispatches in their possession
while on board the Trent. Mr. Alfred Slidell, a son of one of the
commissioners and a passenger on the Trent at the time she was stopped,
said in answer to a recent letter of inquiry from the author: “At the
time Messrs. Mason and Slidell were seized by Capt. Wilkes, they were,
of course, in possession of their letters of credence, besides other
official documents. As far as I can remember, no search was made,
by the officers of the San Jacinto, for official documents, nor any
attempt made to interfere with the members of the families of the four
gentlemen seized.”
[6] See case of the Rapid, Edwards’ Reports, p. 228.
[7] See case of the Madison, Edwards’ Reports, p. 224.
[8] See 6 Robinson’s Adm. Rep., 440-460.
[9] Dana’s Wheaton, note, section 504.
[10] Dr. Woolsey, Introduction to the Study of International Law,
section 199.
[11] See Hautefeuille’s Pamphlet, “Questions of Maritime International
Law.”
[12] See J. Q. Adams’s Memoirs, Vol. V, chapter 12.
[13] Introduction to the Study of International Law, section 199.
[14] “L’Amérique devant l’Europe,” chapter on the Trent.
[15] Wheaton’s International Law, section 504, note.
[16] Twenty Years of Congress, Vol. I, p. 585.
CHAPTER XX.
REFLECTIONS ON THE COURSE OF THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT.
After the lapse of a third of a century the course of the British
government in the affair of the Trent may be considered calmly and
without passion or prejudice. In the absence of such influences, it
should be easy to draw correct conclusions concerning the motives
which controlled the action of the English ministry on that occasion.
The facts which have been presented in former chapters speak for
themselves. Extended comment upon them is unnecessary.
In view of all the circumstances of the case there can be but one
conclusion possible, and that is one which is unfavorable to England.
The action taken by her government in that instance was unwarranted by
the nature of the case; it was not consistent with either the pretended
position of England as a leader of civilization or with the past record
of that country as regards her treatment of neutrals; and last but
not least, her course was adopted and pursued with the intention of
deliberately menacing the United States of America at a time when they
were already engaged in a deadly struggle, and least able to resent
foreign insults.
It is true that no government can hope to maintain the respect of the
civilized world, if it tamely submits to wanton outrage perpetrated
against its flag. When premeditated insult is offered, the national
honor should be vindicated, although it be necessary to do so by
an appeal to arms, and the fortunes of even a doubtful war. These
things have been urged in justification of the conduct of the British
government in the affair of the Trent.
It is not true that the act of Captain Wilkes was an “outrage on the
British flag,” as has been so often affirmed by apologists for the
course pursued by England on that occasion. The seizure of the southern
commissioners was not an act which can be said to possess any of the
essential qualities of outrage. It was done, as has already been stated
in a preceding chapter, without any authority whatever from the Federal
government. Although the proceeding was irregular, and not sanctioned
by the principles of international law, there existed on the part of
Captain Wilkes not the slightest intention to offer an affront to the
British flag. Filled with patriotic zeal to serve his own country he
was guilty of having stopped a British mail packet on the high seas and
taken from her four American citizens, insurgents, proceeding to Europe
in the hope of securing assistance there to accomplish the ruin of
their country. No harm was done or offered to the person or property of
any British subject. It did not lie within the power of Captain Wilkes
to insult the British nation unless his act had been previously ordered
by his government or afterward sanctioned by it.
It often happens in war, and not infrequently in peace, that an act
not permitted by the law of nations will be done toward a neutral
by some over-zealous commander of a single cruiser. In such a case,
the government of the injured party, after having been officially
informed of the matter, usually brings it to the notice of the
offender’s government and seeks redress through diplomatic means upon
the assumption that the act complained of was done without authority.
This is the recognized and proper method of adjusting such cases among
friendly civilized nations. Such cases are constantly being settled
in this friendly and pacific manner without even a hint or a thought
of a resort to arms by either party. Quite a different course was
pursued in England on this occasion. “Within a week the demand for
reparation was on its way to America; within a fortnight, several of
the finest regiments in the Queen’s army were on their way to Canada;
immense stores of war were embarked; the _matériel_ of a considerable
army was in readiness; a fleet of incomparable power was in commission
which would have been tripled at the first moment of hostilities; the
sea-faring population joined the naval reserve with alacrity; and
throughout the nation one spirit prevails of absolute confidence in its
rulers, and absolute determination to maintain its rights.”[1]
This would have been justifiable in case of a deliberate and
premeditated insult for which the offending government was undoubtedly
responsible. In the case under consideration there was nothing in
question except the isolated act of the commander of a single detached
cruiser. Upon the mere hearing of this one such act, the British
government made an instant and peremptory demand for reparation which
was dictated by themselves and backed by more active preparations
for war than had been made in that country since the Napoleonic
era.[2] No one knew whether the act had been committed in pursuance
of instructions from the Federal government or not. There was to be
no discussion of the case; no consideration of what the American
government might have to say; no arbitration or diplomatic means of
obtaining redress in accordance with the practice of friendly nations.
The United States were given the alternative of acceding to the
peremptory demand of Great Britain or of engaging in a war with that
country.
The first communication to the Washington government was an
ultimatum--a last and only condition, a beginning with the end.
The natural beginning in such a case would have been to ask for an
explanation of intentions, and to demand reparation of the wrong done,
without at the same time preparing for war. In discussing the English
ultimatum Count De Gasparin says: “Public opinion, moreover, was
aroused in Europe with unforeseen rapidity; the precipitation of the
measure adopted at London was judged severely; the clause concerning
apology was also abandoned in fact. But it is no less incredible that
it figured in the original programme. Little children are made to ask
pardon, the humiliation of apology is inflicted on countries without
regular government, on Turks and savages; between nations which respect
each other mutually, it is always deemed sufficient satisfaction to
repair the wrong and deny the hostile intention.”[3]
The Morning Post and other London newspapers defended the ultimatum on
the ground that the act of Captain Wilkes was the last of a series of
hostile acts designed to bring about a war. It was said that the United
States were seeking a pretext for declaring war against England, and
that Mr. Seward desired to heal the domestic difficulty by proposing to
reconcile all differences with the South and make a common assault on
Canada. They said that if war must come it is best to choose one’s own
time instead of awaiting the inevitable.
These statements are too silly to deserve serious consideration. In
refuting these absurdities, Count De Gasparin says:[4] “I have followed
the progress of events in America as attentively as any one, I have
read the American newspapers, I have studied documents, among others
the famous circular of Mr. Seward; I have seen there more than one
sign of discontent with the unsympathizing attitude of England; I have
also seen there the symptoms of the somewhat natural fear which the
intervention of Europe in Mexico excites in men attached to the Monroe
doctrine; but as to these incredible plans (annexing Canada, etc.),
I have never discovered the slightest trace of them.” It was only
Englishmen who could discover such plans.
An ultimatum to the Federal government--one prepared and forwarded
without seeking explanations--was the panacea for English wounded honor
in this instance. Only five years before, in the Paris congress, an
Englishman, Lord Clarendon, had proposed a rule of arbitration that
he said would be a “barrier to those conflicts which not infrequently
break out only because of the impossibility of offering explanations or
of coming to an understanding.”
This was a question introduced by the English government. It was
discussed with earnestness, and a final vote postponed until the
Russian representative could obtain the views of his government by
telegraph. The unanimous declaration assented to by all the powers,
including the United States, was as follows: “The plenipotentiaries do
not hesitate to express the wish, in the name of their governments,
that states, between which serious dissensions may arise, shall
have recourse to the good offices of a friendly power, as far as
circumstances permit, before appealing to arms.”
If there has ever been a case where this rule, proposed and adopted
at the suggestion of England, could be applied advantageously, it
was certainly in the instance under consideration. A war was about
to break out through “the impossibility of offering explanations, or
of coming to an understanding.” This proposition, so earnestly made
and so cheerfully assented to only five years before, was utterly
disregarded at the first opportunity to put it into practice. This was
an inconsistency, not creditable to English character.
There was absolutely nothing in the affair which justified a menace of
war, and, if the British government ever believed that such was the
case, it was soon undeceived. It has already been stated in a previous
chapter that on November 30, Mr. Seward took the precaution to write
to Mr. Adams at London, and inform him that the act of Captain Wilkes
was entirely upon his own responsibility, and without instructions from
the government; that the United States was uncommitted and ready to
meet Great Britain half way in any sort of a friendly disposition of
the matter.
On December 19 Mr. Adams called upon Lord Russell at the foreign
office, and read the dispatch to him. This was an absolute assurance
that any reasonable terms would be accepted, and that all warlike
demonstrations were needless. This pacific dispatch from Mr. Seward,
however, did not have the slightest effect upon the British government.
All knowledge of the dispatch or even of the interview was carefully
concealed from the British public lest this assurance--given in
advance--of a willingness to settle the matter in a peaceable manner,
would destroy the warlike enthusiasm which was then so nearly universal
among the British people. The preparations for war continued with
unabated vigor. The British government did not care to take into
consideration anything just then that would interfere with the parade
of its military power, which was being made in order to overawe the
United States and secure the concession of the English demands.
Mr. Adams regarded the contents of the dispatch as confidential and
so took care that no one outside the legation should know of its
existence or of the interview with Lord Russell. Finally certain
London newspapers published rumors of the whole matter. On December 21
the Morning Post, the organ of the ministry, hastened to publish, in
large type, the official contradiction of the news, and stated that
no dispatch had been received which had the slightest bearing on the
Trent case. Only a few days later the Observer published a summary
of all the events relating to the case, at the close of which was a
fairly correct account of the substance of Mr. Seward’s dispatch of
November 30. “After the appearance of that,” says Mr. Adams, “I had no
hesitation in disclosing to persons with whom I conversed my knowledge
of its correctness. It was then with no little surprise that they
perceived last week, when intelligence was received from America of
the existence of such a paper, a formal denial in the Post that any
such paper had ever been communicated to the British government. No
longer able to deny the existence of it, the next step was to affirm
that I must have suppressed it. And not satisfied with that, the same
press went on to supply a motive for doing so, in the fact that certain
American parties had about the same time appeared in the market buying
up stock, which was the cause of the rise in the funds already alluded
to. Of course the assumption was that I was engaged in a heavy stock
jobbing operation for my own benefit and that of my friends.”[5]
The Post evidently wanted to have the British public believe a
falsehood as long as possible. Finally Lord Russell’s account of the
matter, as given in a note to Lord Lyons, was published and the case
was clear to all. But the Post remained silent. It made no retraction
of its statements; no justification for making them; neither did it
disclaim the authority upon which they were made.
There seemed to be an eagerness on the part of the British government
to seize on the occasion and to grasp the pretext for making war. It
was loth to give up this chance which had been so hastily accepted.
Peace was not wanted, but war. A kindred people were already engaged
in a struggle for their very existence, yet, for a difference which
it was easily possible to arrange by diplomatic means, this professed
leader of civilization and boasted enemy of human slavery did all in
her power to make a conflict inevitable and the triumph of an insurgent
slave republic certain. A few almost unknown Englishmen presented an
address to the prime minister at this time. It was an appeal from the
Anti-Slavery Society. The case was well stated. They said: “Such an
undertaking on the part of England would not only be most humiliating,
but would lamentably contradict her past efforts and former sacrifices
for the liberty of slaves; it would expose her protests to the reproach
of hypocrisy from the rest of the world; it would destroy her claim and
close her lips henceforth to every appeal addressed to the intelligence
and conscience of other nations. The members of the society experience
inexpressible horror and repugnance at the thought of seeing their
country engaged in a war the virtual end of which would be the defense
of slavery.”
The circumstances of this case permitted “recourse to the good offices
of a friendly power” before rushing to arms. This would probably have
been proposed by the United States, if any opportunity to do so had
been permitted. It is known that this method would have been most
satisfactory to President Lincoln. But the English view of the case
was that a blow had been received and this was not a matter which
admitted of arbitration. It must be settled by war unless the British
demands were instantly granted. It was not an ordinary infraction of
international law; it was an enormity, and therefore entirely proper
that the first message sent to Lord Lyons should instruct him to demand
his passports in seven days if the Federal government did not submit
fully to the conditions dictated by England.
Captain Wilkes’s error was entirely excusable. It was in no respect
like any of the genuine outrages which England has been guilty of in
her dealings with America. In 1795 the British war ship Africa entered
American waters with the avowed intention of seizing M. Fauchet, the
French minister to the United States. He was traveling from New York to
Newport in the packet Peggy, a neutral American vessel. Having received
intimations of the intention of the commander of the Africa, M. Fauchet
left the American vessel at Stonington, Conn. When the Peggy had
arrived almost at the harbor of Newport, and while within the maritime
jurisdiction of the United States, she was boarded from the Africa, the
trunks of the passengers were searched and great disappointment shown
on account of the absence of M. Fauchet. The British vice-consul at
Newport aided in this matter. These facts show that the French minister
to the United States escaped seizure, only because he had left the
American packet a few hours before.[6]
For three-quarters of a century England maintained and practiced the
“right of search and seizure.” “The victims were counted by thousands.
Lord Castlereagh himself admitted, on the floor of the House of
Commons, that an inquiry instituted by the British government had
discovered in the British fleet three thousand five hundred men
claiming to be impressed Americans. At our department of state six
thousand cases were recorded, and it was estimated that at least
as many more might have occurred, of which no information had been
received. Thus according to this official admission of the British
minister there was reason to believe that the quarter-deck of a British
man-of-war had been made a floating judgment-seat three thousand
five hundred times, while according to the records of our own state
department, it had been made a floating judgment-seat six thousand
times and upwards, and each time an American citizen had been taken
from the protection of his flag without any form of trial known to
the law.”[7] The practice was pursued with the utmost arrogance and
without discrimination among those who were liable to seizure. On one
occasion two nephews of Washington, returning from Europe, were seized
on board an American vessel and placed under the ordinary discipline of
a British man-of-war.
In 1837 a body of British troops entered the territory of the United
States, seized the American steamer Caroline, which, it was claimed,
had rendered some sort of service to the rebellious Canadians, set her
on fire and allowed her to drift over the Falls of Niagara. But it is
unnecessary to extend this list of outrages. There are enough of them
to satisfy any one that the London Times was correct when it admitted
that Great Britain was not “immaculate.”
In commenting upon this matter, Mr. Blaine says: “Whatever wrong was
inflicted on the British flag by the action of Captain Wilkes had been,
time and again, inflicted on the American flag by officers of the
English navy, without cause, without redress, without apology. * * *
But in view of the past, and of the long series of graver outrages with
which Great Britain had so wantonly insulted the American flag, she
might have refrained from invoking the judgment of the civilized world
against us, and especially might she have refrained from making, in the
hour of our sore trial and our deep distress, a demand which no British
minister would address to this government in the day of its strength
and its power.”[8]
In conclusion it is worthy of remark that, with unimportant exceptions,
the relations of the United States with the various countries of
continental Europe have always been of the most friendly and agreeable
character. In the revolution, France recognized the struggling
Americans and furnished them timely and substantial aid. Russia has
always been the steadfast friend of America and probably would have
aided the United States in a third war against England in 1861.
War in the early history of the United States, and, in later times,
a succession of diplomatic disputes which have often threatened war,
constitute much the larger portion of the record of Anglo-American
international relations. This should be a matter of sincere regret
in both countries. President Buchanan stated the case well when he
said, “No two nations have ever existed on the face of the earth which
could do each other so much good or so much harm.”[9] It is for this
reason that every friend of either country should desire that the next
century of their relations may be one of continuous peace and good-will.
AUTHORITIES AND REFERENCES.
1. Blaine, James G.: Twenty Years of Congress.
2. Dana’s Wheaton’s International Law, section 504, note.
3. De Gasparin: L’Amérique devant l’Europe.
4. De Gasparin: Un Grand Peuple qui se relève.
5. Edinburgh Review, Vol. CXV.
6. Ex. Document, 2d Session 35th Congress, Vol. II.
7. Senate Ex. Documents: Vol. I, 3d Session 37th Congress; No. 4,
37th Congress, 3d Session.
8. Sumner, Charles: Speech in U. S. Senate, Jan. 9, 1862.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Edinburgh Review, Vol. CXV, p. 284.
[2] See Life of Thurlow Weed, Vol. I, p. 643.
[3] “L’Amérique devant l’Europe,” chapter on the Trent.
[4] See the last chapter of his “Un Grand Peuple qui se relève.”
[5] Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward, Jan. 17, 1862.
[6] See Senate Executive Document, No. 4, 37th Cong., 3d Sess.
[7] Sumner’s speech on the Trent affair.
[8] Blaine’s Twenty Years of Congress, Vol. I, pp. 586-7.
[9] Ex. Doc., 2d Sess. 35th Cong., Vol. II, p. 2.
INDEX.
_The Numbers Refer to Pages._
Adams, Charles Francis, U. S. minister to England, instructed to
oppose recognition of Confederacy, 34;
to oppose neutrality measures, 37;
refused audience prior to recognition of Confederate belligerency,
36-7;
conveys assurances of Mr. Seward’s pacific intentions in Trent case
to Lord Russell, 275.
Albert, Prince, revises British demand for surrender of Mason and
Slidell, 165-6.
American doctrine in Trent case, 262-264.
Atalanta, case of the, cited, 254.
Austrian government, views of in Trent case, 201-203;
Mr. Seward’s answer to, 203-204.
Belligerency, recognition of Confederate, discussed by parliament, 38;
what is meant by recognition of, 39-41.
Benjamin, Judah P., advocates secession and resumption of allegiance
to British crown, 70.
Bernard, Montague, defends British neutrality proclamation, 48.
Black, J. S., secretary of state, sends circular letter to U. S.
ministers abroad, 31.
Blaine, Jas. G., comments on Trent case, 180.
Blair, Montgomery, denounces capture of Mason and Slidell, 126.
Boundary disputes, 12.
Bright, John, opposes position of English government in Trent case,
158-9.
British demand for surrender of Mason and Slidell, first draft of,
164-5;
revised by Prince Albert and the Queen, 165-6;
text of, 167-9;
comments upon, 169-170;
presented to Mr. Seward, 172.
British government, course of in Trent case discussed, 269;
ultimatum of in Trent case considered, 272-4;
inconsistency of, 274;
menaces of war by unnecessary, 274;
receives through Mr. Adams assurances of Mr. Seward’s pacific
intentions, 275;
treatment of same, 275-6;
addressed on Trent case by Anti-slavery society, 277.
Buchanan, James, comments of on British and American relations, 13,
14, 280.
Canada, troops pushed into by England, 60, 143-6;
comments upon by Thurlow Weed, 144;
by the London press, 144-5;
preparations for war in, 158.
Caroline, case of the, cited, 254, 279.
Circular letter to U. S. ministers abroad by Mr. Black, 31;
by Mr. Seward, 32;
by Mr. Seward to governors of the northern states, 61-4;
commented upon by the London and the Canadian press, 65-67.
Commons, House of, motion to recognize Confederate independence in,
35;
Mr. Gregory supports same in London Times, 35.
Derby, Earl of, consulted by British government in Trent case, 143.
Dispatches of Messrs. Mason and Slidell, 112;
contraband nature of, 253-6;
the commissioners considered living dispatches by Capt. Wilkes,
113, 119;
this doctrine not tenable, 260.
European powers, real motives of in sustaining England in Trent case,
206-8.
Everett, Edward, expresses opinion in Trent case, 128.
Excitement in England over Trent affair, 140;
reaches U. S., 175.
Fairfax, Lieut. D. M., receives instructions from Capt. Wilkes,
101-102;
part taken in seizure of envoys, 103-108;
discusses Trent case with British Capt. Moir, 109.
Fauchet, M., French Minister to U. S., attempted seizure of in
American waters by a British man-of-war, 278.
Foreign countries, responses of to Mr. Seward’s circular letter, 33.
Freeman, Edward A., English historian regards the American Union as
at an end, 29.
Garibaldi, wishes to volunteer in Federal army, 33.
Gladstone, Wm. E., expresses sympathy with the South, 28;
charges American people with instability and cowardice, 235-6.
Grotius cited, 249.
International law in Trent case, 247-262.
Irish people, sympathize with U. S. in Trent affair, 148.
Iverson, Senator, predicts foreign aid for the Confederacy, 70.
King, T. Butler, see Yancey.
Lincoln, Abraham, views on capture of Mason and Slidell, 125-6;
illustrates Trent case by stories, 185-6;
proposed dispatch of to Great Britain relative to Trent case,
188-190.
Liverpool, excited public meeting at on account of seizure of Mason
and Slidell, 146-7.
London, press of, comments on seizure of Mason and Slidell, 148-152;
a dissenting newspaper in, 159-160.
Lovejoy, Representative, comments of upon surrender of Mason and
Slidell, 229-231.
Lyons, Lord, British minister to U. S., reports secession of southern
states to his government, 17;
expresses no opinion in Trent case, 131;
conditional order to leave Washington in seven days, 171;
to give information to British governors, 171;
to make verbal demand for surrender of Mason and Slidell, 172.
Lytton, Sir Edward Bulwer, expresses sympathy for the Confederacy, 27.
Mann, Dudley, see Yancey.
Mason, James Murray, sketch of, 80.
Mason and Slidell, nature and objects of their mission abroad, 79,
83, 84;
Mr. Seward’s letter for thwarting efforts of, 84-8;
escape from Charleston, 91-2;
comments of Richmond Examiner upon, 94-6;
arrival and reception at Havana, 93-4;
embark upon British steamer Trent, 94;
seized by Capt. Wilkes, 106-7;
become prisoners at Fort Warren, Boston, 111;
protest against seizure, 111;
dispatches in possession of, 112;
reception of news of capture of in North, 117-119;
rejoicing in North at capture of, 124;
northern newspaper comments on capture of, 124, 127-9;
attitude of Mr. Lincoln on capture of, 125-6;
capture of denounced by Mr. Blair, 126;
comments on capture of, by Confederate press, 131;
by Jefferson Davis, 131-2;
by Canadian press, 132-4;
capture of anticipated in England, 163-4;
considered by British cabinet, 164-5;
belief in the North that they would not be surrendered, 176-7;
surrender of a disappointment to the South, 233;
opposed by Senator Hale, 177-9;
by C. L. Vallandigham, 180;
by people of the North, 226;
by Northern newspapers, 180-2;
commented upon by John W. Forney, 164-5;
by Mr. Wright, of Pa., 228;
by Mr. Thomas, of Mass., 227-8;
by Mr. Lovejoy, of Ill., 229-31;
by the Canadian press, 233-4;
by English press, 234-5;
demand for surrender of, significance of, 186-7;
caused rejoicing at the South, 185;
surrender of discussed in cabinet meeting, 190-4;
surrendered to Lord Lyons, 225;
proceed to Europe, 226;
sink into insignificance when surrendered, 236;
comments upon after difficulty is settled, by London Star, 236;
by London Times, 236-7;
diplomatic character of, 258-9;
not “living dispatches,” 260;
entitled to right of asylum, 261;
_status_ of in a maritime court, 262.
McCarthy, Justin, defense of neutrality proclamation by, 47.
Moir, captain of the Trent, behavior of when his vessel was boarded,
103, 108;
discusses Trent affair with Lieut. Fairfax, 109.
Neutrality proclamation, British, issue of, 38;
discussion of, 42-47;
defense of by Justin McCarthy, 47;
by Lord Stanley, 47;
by Montague Bernard, 48;
the defenses examined, 48-51;
not violated by captain of Trent, 257-8.
Newcastle, Duke of, 153.
Orozembo, case of the, cited, 251-2.
Pakington, Sir John, expresses sympathy for the South, 28.
Palmerston, Lord, British premier, an enemy to the North, 28.
Paris, declaration of, adopted, 53;
refused by U. S., 54;
discussion of by Sir H. S. Maine, 54;
urged upon the Confederates by Lord Russell and Consul Bunch, 55;
adopted by the Confederate Congress, 56;
indorsed by Lord Russell, 57;
Mr. Bunch’s course, a violation of U. S. law, 57;
discussion of, 58-9.
Presidential messages dealing with difficulties between U. S. and
Great Britain, 13.
Prince of Wales visits America, 14;
the queen thanks people of the U. S. for his reception, 15;
reply of the president, 16;
comments of the London press, 16-17.
Prussia offers opinion in Trent case, 204-206.
Queen Victoria thanks people of U. S. for Prince of Wales’s
reception, 15;
revises demand for surrender of Mason and Slidell, 165-6.
Quarterlies, British, encourage secession, 23-26.
Results of successful secession, 21-2.
Richmond Examiner, comments of, upon the escape of Mason and Slidell,
94-6.
Right of search, abandoned by Great Britain, 12;
England criticised for practicing, 278-9.
Rost, P. A., see Yancey.
Russell, Lord John, threatens U. S., 18;
expresses sympathy for the Confederacy, 27;
indifferent to the cause of the Union, 33;
receives first Confederate diplomatic agents, 73;
views of American position in Trent case, 239-245;
addresses demand for surrender of Mason and Slidell to Lord Lyons,
167-9;
addresses private notes at same time to Lord Lyons, 170-2.
Russia, friendly to U. S., 208;
sends fleet to America when war with England is probable, 209-10.
San Jacinto, character of the, 97.
Scott, Gen. Winfield, writes letter to Paris press on Trent affair,
155-6;
returns hastily to U. S., 156-7.
Scott, Sir William, cited, 248, 251-2-3, 255.
Seward, Wm. H., secretary of state, sends circular letter to U. S.
ministers abroad, 32;
to northern governors, 61-4;
informs Minister Adams that seizure of Mason and Slidell was
unauthorized, 134-5;
this dispatch promptly communicated to Lord Russell, 275;
no attention paid to it, 275-7;
abused by British press, 152;
accused of insulting the Duke of Newcastle, 153;
answer of to British demand for Mason and Slidell, 211-220;
strength of this document, 221-2;
its weakness, 222-3;
position in Trent case untenable, 265-6;
offers passage across Maine to British troops, 238.
Shrewsbury, Earl of, expresses sympathy for the Confederacy, 28.
Slavery in America, a source of trouble to Great Britain, 22.
Slidell, John, sketch of, 81;
predicts foreign aid for the Confederacy, 70.
Spence, James, a prominent Englishman, publishes a book to encourage
Confederate cause, 25.
Sumner, Charles, senator from Mass., confers with Mr. Lincoln and
cabinet relative to surrender of Mason and Slidell, 125, 190;
speech in senate on same, 231-2;
condemns England for practicing “search and seizure,” 278-9.
Thouvenel, M., offers opinion of French government on seizure of
Mason and Slidell, 196-200;
Mr. Seward replies, 200;
Mr. Thouvenel’s position examined, 200-201.
Trent, character of the, 94;
why she was not seized, 108;
purser of publishes account of seizure of Mason and Slidell in
London Times, 137-9;
affair of the, creates great excitement in England, 140-1;
neutral _termini_ of discussed, 255-6-7;
case of, summary of principles involved in, 264-5.
Vallandigham, C. L., opposes surrender of Mason and Slidell, 180,
227, 229.
Vattel cited, by Mr. Seward: discussion of, 248, 249, 250.
War preparations on account of Trent affair, in Canada, 158;
in England, 141-142;
necessary in U. S., discussion of by newspapers, 181-2.
Weed, Thurlow, letter of in London Times on Trent affair, 153-4;
reply of Times to same, 154-5;
notices warlike preparations in England, 144.
Wilkes, Capt. Charles, character of, 97-8;
returns from Africa to West Indies, 98;
learns of the Mason and Slidell mission, 98-9;
makes preparations to seize the commissioners, 99-100;
instructions to Lieut. Fairfax, 101-2;
intercepts the Trent and seizes the commissioners, 102-7;
proceeds to Fortress Monroe, 109,
thence to New York, 110,
and finally to Boston, 109, 111-112;
reasons for not seizing the Trent, 112-115;
made a hero of, 117-119;
thanked by secretary of war, 120-1;
act of, approved by navy department, 121;
resolutions of thanks to, by Congress, 122-3;
had right to stop and search Trent, 260-1.
Williams, Commander Richard, behavior of while Mason and Slidell were
being seized, 104-5;
makes official report of Trent affair to British admiralty, 140,
164;
makes ridiculous speech, 157-8.
Yancey, Rost, Mann, and King, Messrs., first Confederate agents in
Europe, 71;
sketch of these men, 71-72;
comments of Jefferson Davis concerning their labors, 76;
received by Lord Russell, 72-3;
protest against their reception by Mr. Seward, 73-4;
Mr. Yancey’s speech before Fishmonger’s Society, London, 74;
Mr. King’s pamphlet for foreign circulation, 75-6.
Transcriber note
Spelling and punctuation errors have been corrected.
Footnotes have been moved to the end of chapters.
Italics have been enclosed in underscores.
Smallcaps have been capitalised.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE TRENT AFFAIR ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
