Volume 10 — OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS: SHOWING (continued 3)

A new power, dedicated to Slavery, will take its seat at the great council-board, to jostle thrones and benches, while it overshadows humanity. Its foul attorneys, reeking with Slavery, will have their letter of license as ambassadors of Slavery, to rove from court to court, over foreign carpets, poisoning the air which has been nobly pronounced too pure for a slave to breathe. Alas for England, vowed a thousand times to the protection of the African race, and by her best renown knit perpetually to this sacred loyalty, now plunging into adulterous dalliance with Slavery, recognizing the new and impious Protestantism against Liberty itself, and wickedly becoming Defender of the Faith as now professed by Rebel Slavemongers! Alas for England’s Queen, woman and mother, carried off from the cause of Wilberforce and Clarkson to sink into unseemly association with the scourgers of women and the auctioneers of children!—for a “stain” deeper than that which aroused the anguish of Maria Theresa is settling upon her reign. Alas for that Royal Consort, humane and just, whose dying voice was given to assuage the temper of that ministerial despatch, by which, in an evil hour, England was made to strike hands with Rebel Slavery!—for the counsellor is needed now to save the land he adorned from an act of inexpiable shame.

And for all this sickening immorality I hear but one declared apology. It is, that the Union permitted and still permits Slavery,—therefore foreign nations may recognize Rebel Slavery as a new power. Here is the precise error. England is still in diplomatic relations with Spain, and was only a short time ago in diplomatic relations with Brazil, both permitting Slavery; but these two powers are not new, they are already established, there is no question of recognition, nor do they pretend to found empire on Slavery. There is no reason in any relations with them why a new power, with Slavery as its declared “corner-stone,” whose gospel is Slavery, and whose evangelists are Slavemongers, should be recognized in the Family of Nations. If Ireland were in triumphant rebellion against the British Queen, complaining of rights denied, it would be our duty to recognize her as an independent power; but if Ireland rebelled with the declared object of establishing a new power which should be nothing less than a giant felony and a nuisance to the world, then it would be our duty to spurn the infamous pretension, and no triumph of rebellion could change this plain and irresistible obligation. And yet, in face of this commanding rule, we are told to expect the recognition of Rebel Slavery.

An aroused public opinion, “the world’s collected will,” and returning reason in England and France, will see to it that Civilization is saved from this shock, and the nations themselves from the terrible retribution which sooner or later must surely attend it. No power can afford to stand up before mankind and openly vote a new and untrammelled charter to injustice and cruelty. God is an unsleeping avenger; nor can armies, fleets, bulwarks, or “towers along the steep” prevail against His mighty anger. To any application for this unholy recognition there is but one word the Christian powers can utter. It is simply and austerely “No,” with an emphasis that shall silence argument and extinguish hope itself. And this proclamation should go forth swiftly. Every moment of hesitation is a moment of apostasy, casting its lengthening shadow of dishonor. Not to discourage is to encourage; not to blast is to bless. Let this simple word be uttered, and Slavery will slink away with a mark on its forehead, like Cain, a perpetual vagabond, forever accursed; and the malediction of the Lord shall descend upon it, saying: “Among these nations shalt thou find no ease, neither shall the sole of thy foot have rest; but the Lord shall give thee there a trembling heart and failing of eyes and sorrow of mind; and thy life shall hang in doubt before thee, and thou shalt fear day and night, and shalt have none assurance of thy life; in the morning thou shalt say, Would God it were even, and at even thou shalt say, Would God it were morning.”[141]

V.

Too much have I spoken for your patience, if not enough for the cause. But there is yet another topic, which I have reserved to the last, because logically it belongs there, or at least can be best considered in the gathered light of the previous discussion. Its immediate practical interest is great. I refer to the Concession of Belligerent Rights, being the first stage to independence. Great Britain led the way in acknowledging the embryo government as belligerent on sea as well as land, and by proclamation of the Queen declared neutrality between the two parties,—thus lifting an embryo, which was nothing else than animate Slavery, to equality on sea as well as land with its ancient ally, the National Government. Here was a blunder, if not a crime, not merely in the alacrity with which it was done, but in doing it at all. It was followed immediately by France, and then by Spain, Holland, and Brazil. The concession of belligerent rights on land was a name and nothing more, therefore I say nothing about it. But the concession of belligerent rights on the ocean is of widely different character, and the two reasons against the recognition of independence are equally applicable to this concession: first, the embryo government has no maritime or naval belligerent rights de facto, and, secondly, an embryo of Rebel Slavery cannot have the character de facto which would justify the concession of maritime or naval belligerence; so that, were the concession vindicated on the first ground, it must fail on the second.

The concession of ocean belligerence is a letter of license from consenting powers to every Slavemonger cruiser, or rather it is the countersign of these powers to the commission of every such cruiser. Without such countersign the cruiser would be an outlaw, with no right to enter a foreign port. The declaration of belligerence imparts legal competence, and the right to testify by flag and arms. Without such competence there would be no flag and no right to bear arms on the ocean. Burke sententiously describes it as an “intermediate treaty which puts rebels in possession of the Law of Nations with regard to war.”[142] And this is plainly true.

The magnitude of this concession may be seen in three aspects: first, in the immunities it confers, putting an embryo of Rebel Slavery on equality with established governments, making its cruisers lawful instead of piratical, and opening to them boundless facilities at sea and in port, so that they may obtain supplies and hospitality; secondly, in the degradation it fastens upon the National Government, which is condemned to see its ships treated on equality with the ships of Rebel Slavery, and also the just rule of “neutrality” between belligerent powers invoked to fetter its activity against a giant felony; and, thirdly, in the disturbance to commerce it sanctions, by letting loose lawless sea-rovers armed with belligerent rights, including the right of search, whose natural recklessness is left unbridled and without remedy even from diplomatic intercourse. The ocean is a common highway; but it is for the interest of all who traverse it that the highway should not be disturbed by predatory hostilities. Such a concession should be made with the greatest caution, and then only under the necessity of the case, on the overwhelming authority of the fact: for, from beginning to end, it is simply a question of fact, absolutely dependent on those conditions and prerequisites without which ocean belligerence cannot exist.

As a general rule, belligerent rights are conceded only where a rebel government or contending party in a civil war has acquired such form and body, that, for the time being, within certain limits, it is sovereign de facto, so far at least as to command troops and to administer justice. On this last point I dwell especially. It is the capacity to administer justice which is the criterion, whether on land or ocean. The concession of belligerence is the recognition of such limited sovereignty, which bears the same relation to acknowledged independence as gristle bears to bone. It is obvious that such sovereignty may exist de facto on land without existing de facto on ocean. It may prevail in armies, and yet fail in navies. In short, the fact may be one way on land and the other way on ocean. Nor can it be inferred on ocean simply from existence on land. Our Supreme Court has declared that there may be “a limited, partial war,” “a restrained or limited hostility,” “an imperfect war, or a war as to certain objects and to a certain extent.” Thus, on one occasion, hostilities were authorized “on the high seas by certain persons in certain cases,” but without authority “to commit hostilities on land.”[143] But by the same rule there may be war on land and not on sea, and this may follow from the necessity of the case. If Rebel Slavery does not come within the conditions of ocean war, then, whatever its belligerence on land, it cannot expect it on the ocean. Since every such concession is adverse to the original government, and is made only under the necessity of the case, it must be limited carefully to the actual fact. Indeed, Mr. Canning, who has shed so much light on these topics, openly took the ground that “belligerency is not so much a principle as a fact.”[144] And the question then arises, whether Rebel Slavery has acquired such de facto sovereignty on the ocean as entitles it to ocean belligerent rights.

There are at least two “facts” patent to all: first, that Rebel Slavery is without a single port into which even legal cruisers can take prizes for adjudication; and, secondly, that the ships which now presume to exercise ocean belligerent rights in its name—constituting that navy which a member of the British Cabinet announced as “to be created”—were all “created” in England, which is the naval base from which they sally forth on predatory cruise, without once entering a port of their own pretended government.

These two “facts” are different in nature. The first attaches absolutely to the pretended power, rendering it incompetent to exercise belligerent jurisdiction on the ocean. The second attaches to the individual ships, rendering them piratical. These simple and unquestionable “facts” are the key to unlock the present question.

From the reason of the case, there can be no ocean belligerent without a port into which it can take prizes. Any other rule is absurd. It is not enough to sail the sea, like the Flying Dutchman; the ocean belligerent must be able to touch the land, and that land its own. This proceeds on the idea of civilized warfare, that something more than naked force is essential to the completeness of capture. According to the earlier rule, transmutation of property was accomplished by the “pernoctation” of the captured ship within the port of the belligerent,—or, as it was called, deductio infra præsidia. As early as 1414, under Henry the Fifth of England, there was an Act of Parliament requiring privateers to bring their prizes into a port of the kingdom, and to make a declaration thereof to a proper officer, before undertaking to dispose of them.[145] The modern rule interposes an additional check upon lawless violence, by requiring the condemnation of a competent court. This rule, which is among the most authoritative of the British Admiralty, is found in the famous letter of Sir William Scott and Sir John Nicholl, addressed to John Jay, as follows: “Before the ship or goods can be disposed of by the captor, there must be a regular judicial proceeding, wherein both parties may be heard, and condemnation thereupon as prize, in a Court of Admiralty, judging by the Law of Nations and treaties.”[146] This is explicit, and is plainly necessary for the protection of neutral commerce. But this rule is French as well as English. It is part of International Law. A seizure is regarded merely as a preliminary act, which does not divest the property, though it paralyzes the right of the proprietor. A subsequent act of condemnation by a competent tribunal is necessary to determine if the seizure is valid. The question is compendiously called Prize or No Prize. Where the property of neutrals is involved, this requirement becomes of absolute necessity. In conceding belligerence, all customary belligerent rights with regard to neutrals are conceded also, so that neutral rights and interests are put in jeopardy. Here we see at once the wrong done. If nothing is due to Civilization, something is due to neutrals. Without dwelling on this point, I content myself with the authority of two recent French writers. M. Hautefeuille, in his elaborate work, says: “The cruiser is not recognized as the proprietor of the objects seized, he cannot dispose of them, but it is his duty to present himself before the tribunal and obtain a sentence declaring them to be prize.”[147] A later writer, M. Eugène Cauchy, whose work has appeared since our war began, says: “A usage which evidently has its source in natural equity requires, that, before proceeding to divide the booty, there should be an inquiry as to the regularity of the prize. Every prize taken from an enemy should be carried before the judge established by the sovereign of the captor.”[148] But if the power calling itself belligerent cannot comply with this condition,—if it has no port into which it can bring the captured ship, and no court, according to the requirement of the British Admiralty, with “a regular judicial proceeding wherein both parties may be heard,”—it is clearly not in a situation to dispose of a ship or goods as prize. Whatever its force in other respects, it lacks a vital element of ocean belligerence. In that semi-sovereignty which constitutes belligerence on land there must be provision for the administration of justice, without which there is nothing but a mob. In that same semi-sovereignty on the ocean there must be similar provision. It is not enough that there are ships duly commissioned to take prizes, there must also be courts to try them; and the latter are not less important than the former. Such is the conclusion of reason, in harmony with acknowledged principles. How, then, acknowledge belligerent rights where this condition is wanting?

Earl Russell himself, so swift to make this concession, is led to confess the necessity of Prize Courts on the part of ocean belligerents, and thus exposes the irrational character of his own work. In a letter to the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, occasioned by the destruction of British cargoes, the Minister says: “The owners of any British property, not being contraband of war, on board a Federal vessel captured and destroyed by a Confederate vessel of war, may claim in a Confederate Prize Court compensation for destruction of such property.”[149] Even in the very speech announcing the belligerent rights of our Rebels, including the right to visit and detain British merchant vessels having enemy’s property on board and to confiscate such property, Earl Russell was compelled to declare, that “it was necessarily implied, as a condition of such acknowledgment, that the detention was for the purpose of bringing the vessels detained before an established Court of Prize, and that confiscation did not take place until after condemnation by such competent tribunal.”[150] Such was the express condition, obviously to secure justice. If there be no Prize Court, then justice must fail; and with this failure tumbles in fact the whole wretched pretension of ocean belligerence, except in the galvanism of a Queen’s proclamation or a Cabinet concession.

If a cruiser may at any time burn prizes, it is because of some exceptional exigency in a particular case, and not according to general rule, which practically declares that there can be no right to take a prize, if there be no port into which it may be carried. The right of capture and the right of trial are the complements of each other, through which a harsh prerogative is supposed to be rounded into the proper form of civilized warfare. Therefore every ship and cargo burned by the captors for the reason that they had no port testifies that they are without that vital sovereignty on the ocean which is needed in the exercise of belligerent jurisdiction, and that they are not ocean belligerents in fact. Nay, more, all these bonfires of the sea cry out against the power which by precipitate concession furnished the torch. As well invest the rebel rajahs of India, who never tasted salt water, with this ocean prerogative, so that they too may rob and burn; as well constitute land-locked Poland, now in arms for independence, an ocean belligerent,—or enroll mountain Switzerland in the same class,—or join with Shakespeare in giving to inland Bohemia an outlook upon the ocean.[151]

To aggravate this concession, the ships are all built, rigged, armed, and manned in Great Britain. It is out of British oak and British iron that they are constructed, rigged with British ropes, made formidable with British arms, provided with British gunners, and navigated by British crews, so as to constitute in all respects a British naval expedition. British ports supply the place of Rebel Slavemonger ports. British ports are open to them, when their own are closed. British ports constitute their naval base of operations and supplies, furnishing everything needful, except an officer, the ship’s papers, and a court for the trial of the prizes, each of which is essential to the legality of the expedition. And yet these same ships, thus equipped in British ports, and never touching a port of the pretended government in whose name they rob and burn,—being simply a rib taken out of the side of England and prostituted to Rebel Slavery,—receive the further passport of belligerence from the British Government, when in fact the belligerence does not exist. The whole proceeding, from the laying of the keel in a British dockyard to the bursting flames on the ocean, is a mockery of International Law and an insult to a friendly power.

The case is sometimes said to be new; but it is new only as no such “parricide” is provided against in express terms. It was not anticipated. But the principles which govern it are as old as justice and humanity, in the interests of which belligerent rights are said to be conceded. Here it is all reversed, and it is now apparent, that, whatever the motives of the British Government, the concession was in behalf of injustice and inhumanity. Burning ships and scattered wrecks are the witnesses. If such a case is not condemned by International Law, then has this law lost its virtue. Call such cruisers by whatever polite term most pleases the ear, and you do not change their character with their name. Without a home and without a legal character, they are mere gypsies of the sea, disturbers of the common highway, outlaws, and enemies of the human race.

There is a precedent which shows how impossible it is for a pretended power, without a single port, to possess belligerent rights on the ocean, and how impossible it is for the ship of such pretended power to be anything but a felon ship. James the Second of England, after he had ceased to be de facto king, and while an exile without a single port, undertook to issue letters of marque. It was argued unanswerably before the Privy Council of William the Third, that a deposed prince could not receive from any other sovereign “international privileges”; “that, if he could grant a commission to take the ships of a single nation, it would in effect be a general license to plunder, because those who were so commissioned would be their own judges of whatever they took”; and “that the reason of the thing, which pronounced that robbers and pirates, when they formed themselves into a civil society, became just enemies, pronounced also that a king without territory, without power of protecting the innocent or punishing the guilty, or in any way of administering justice, dwindled into a pirate, if he issued commissions to seize the goods and ships of nations, and that they who took commissions from him must be held by legal inference to have associated ‘sceleris causâ’ and could not be considered as members of a civil society.”[152] These weighty words are strictly applicable to the present case. Whatever the force of Rebel Slavery on land, it is no more on the ocean than the “deposed prince,” “without power of protecting the innocent or punishing the guilty, or in any way of administering justice”; and, like the prince, it has “dwindled into a pirate,” except so far as sustained by British concession. In adducing this precedent, I follow the learned ex-Chancellor, Lord Chelmsford, who used it to show, that, without the concession of belligerent rights to our Rebels, “any Englishman aiding them by fitting out a privateer against the Federal Government would be guilty of piracy.”[153] But the reasoning at the Privy Council shows, also, that the concession ought not to have been made.

There is yet another British precedent, which shows how essential are judicial proceedings before appropriation of a captured ship or cargo. The case is memorable. It is none other than that of the famous Captain Kidd, who, on indictment for piracy, as long ago as 1701, produced a commission in justification. But it was at once declared not enough to show a commission; he must also show condemnation of the captured ship. The Lord Chief Baron of that day said, that, “if he had acted pursuant to his commission, he ought to have condemned the ship and goods”; that “by his not condemning them he seems to show his aim, mind, and intention; that he did not act in that case by virtue of his commission, but quite contrary to it, for he takes the ship and shares the money and goods, and is taken in that very ship, … so that there is no color or pretence appears that he intended to bring this ship to England to be condemned or to have condemned it in any of the English plantations”; and that, “whilst men pursue their commissions, they must be justified, but when they do things not authorized, or never acted by them, it is as if there had been no commission at all.”[154] Captain Kidd was condemned to death and executed as a pirate. If he was a pirate, worthy of death, then, by the same rule, those rovers who rob cargoes, burn ships, and adorn their cabins with rows of stolen chronometers, careless of a Prize Court, are entitled to small favor from a civilized power.

Without considering more critically what should be the fate of these ocean incendiaries, or what the responsibilities of England, out of whom they came, I content myself with the conclusion that they are not entitled to ocean belligerence. And here let it be understood that no question is possible with regard to an established power with access to the ocean; for belligerent rights are fixed by International Law, without foreign recognition; nor can the rights of such a power be a precedent for any concession to a rebel community without ports and Prize Courts.

Pirate is a hard word; but Jefferson did not shrink from applying it to “private armed vessels,” infesting our coasts, preying upon our commerce, and making captures at the very entrance of our harbors, as well as on the high seas. “They have carried them off,” he says, “under pretence of legal adjudication; but, not daring to approach a court of justice, they have plundered and sunk them by the way, or in obscure places, where no evidence could arise against them, maltreated the crews, and abandoned them in boats in the open sea or on desert shores without food or covering.” These things, kindred to what is done by our Rebel cruisers, he calls “enormities,” and he announces that he has equipped a force “to bring the offenders in for trial as pirates.”[155]

Even if Rebel Slavery, coagulated in embryo government, has arrived at that semi-sovereignty de facto on the ocean which justifies belligerent rights, yet the Christian powers should indignantly decline to make the concession, because by doing so they make themselves accomplices in shameful crime. Here I avoid details. It is sufficient to say that every argument of fact and reason, every whisper of conscience and humanity, every indignant outburst of an honest man against recognition of Slavery as an independent power, is equally strong against any concession of ocean belligerence. Such concession is half-way house to recognition, and can be made only where a nation is ready, if the fact of independence be sufficiently established, to acknowledge it, on the principle of Vattel, that “whosoever has a right to the end has a right to the means.”[156] It is equally clear, that, where a nation, on grounds of conscience, must refuse recognition of independence, it cannot concede belligerence; for, where the end is forbidden, the means must be forbidden also. The illogical absurdity of such concession by Great Britain, so persistent always against Slavery, and now for more than a generation the declared protectress of the African race, becomes doubly apparent, when it is considered that every Rebel ship built in England and invested with ocean belligerence carries with it the Law of Slavery, so that, by British concession, the ship becomes an extension of Slave territory and a floating Slave castle.

And yet it is said that this impostor is entitled to ocean rights, and the British Queen is made to proclaim them. Sad day for England, when another wicked compromise was struck with Slavery, kindred to that old treaty which mantles the cheeks of honest Englishmen, when the slave-trade was protected and its profits secured to British subjects! I know not the profits secured by the destruction of American commerce, but I do know that the Treaty of Utrecht, crimson with the blood of slaves, is not so crimson as that reckless proclamation which gave to Slavery a frantic life, and helped for a time, nay, still helps, this demon in the rage with which it battles against Human Rights. Such a ship, with the law of Slavery on its deck and the flag of Slavery at its mast-head, sailing for Slavery, fighting for Slavery, burning for Slavery, and knowing no other sovereignty than the pretended government of Rebel Slavery, can be nothing less in spirit and character than a slave pirate and the enemy of the human race. Like produces like, and the parent power, which is Slavery, must stamp itself upon the ship, making it a floating offence to Heaven, with no limit to its audacity,—wild, outrageous, impious, a monster of the deep, to be hunted down by all who have not forgotten their duty alike to God and man.

Meanwhile there is one simple act which the justice of England cannot continue to refuse. That fatal concession, made in a moment of eclipse, when reason and humanity were obscured, must be annulled. The blunder-crime must be renounced, so that Slave pirates may no longer sail the sea, robbing, destroying, burning, with British license. Then will they promptly disappear forever, and with them the occasion of strife between two great powers, who ought to be, if not as mother and child, at least as brothers among the nations. And may God in His mercy help this consummation!

Here I leave this part of the subject, founding my objections on two grounds.

(1.) The embryo of Rebel Slavery has not that degree of sovereignty on the ocean which is essential to belligerence there.

(2.) Even if it possessed the requisite sovereignty, no Christian power can make such concession to it without shameful complicity with Slavery.

Both are objections of fact. Either is sufficient. Even if the belligerence seems to be established as fact, still its concession in this age of Christian light must be impossible, except under some temporary aberration, which, for the honor of England and the welfare of Humanity, should speedily pass away.

Again, fellow-citizens, I crave forgiveness for this long trespass. If the field traversed is ample, it has been brightened always by the light of international justice, exposing clearly, from beginning to end, the sacred landmarks of duty. I have been frank, disguising nothing and keeping nothing back, so that you have been able to see the perils to which the Republic is exposed from the natural tendency of war to breed war, as exhibited in examples of history, and also from the fatal proclivity of foreign powers to intermeddle, as exhibited in recent instances of querulous criticism or intrusive proposition, all adverse to the good cause, while pirate ships are permitted to depredate on our commerce; then how the best historic instances testify in favor of Freedom, and how all intervention of every kind, whether by proffer of mediation or otherwise, becomes intolerable, when its influence tends to the establishment of that soulless anomaly, a professed Republic built on the hopeless and everlasting bondage of a race; and especially how Great Britain is sacredly engaged by all the logic of her history and all her traditions in unbroken lineage against any such unutterable baseness; then how all the Christian powers constituting the Family of Nations are firmly bound to set their faces against any recognition of the embryo government.—first, because its independence is not in fact established, and, secondly, because, even if in fact established, its recognition is impossible without criminal complicity in Slavery; and, lastly, how these same Christian powers are firmly bound by the same twofold reasons against any concession of ocean rights to this hideous pretender.

It only remains that the Republic should gird itself to the majesty of its duties. War is terrible and hard to bear, with its waste, its pains, its wounds, its funerals. But in this war we are not choosers. We are challenged to the defence of country, and in this sacred cause to crush Slavery. There is no alternative. Slavery began the combat, staking life, and determined to rule or die. Let it die; and to this end the country must be aroused. We need a song like “Scots who have with Wallace bled.” The cause is greater now than then. We need words like those of Luther, “half battles.” Ours is another Reformation and another Revolution. The attempted revolution for Slavery we meet by a counter revolution for Liberty. That we may continue freemen, there must be no slaves; and thus our own security is linked with the redemption of a race. Blessed lot, amidst the harshness of war, to wield the arms and deal the blows under which the monster will surely fall! The battle is mighty; for into Slavery has entered the Spirit of Evil. It is persistent; for such a gathered wickedness, concentrated, aroused, and maddened, must have a tenacity of life which will not yield at once. But no might nor time can save it now.

That the whole war is contained in Slavery may be seen not only in the acts of the National Government, but also in the confessions of Rebel Slavemongers. Already the President has proclaimed that the slaves throughout the whole Rebel region “are and henceforward shall be free”; and in order to fix the irreversible character of this sublime edict, he has further announced “that the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.”[157] An enlightened commission is constituted to consider how these thronging freedmen can be best employed for their own good and the national defence. Already the sons of Africa, as mustered soldiers of the Union, have shown a discipline and a bravery not unworthy of their ancient fathers, when the prophet Jeremiah said, “Let the mighty men come forth, the Ethiopians and the Libyans that handle the shield”;[158] and still further, by their stature, by their appearance in the ranks, and even by the unexpected testimony of sanitary statistics, according to which for every black soldier disabled by sickness there are more than ten white, thus making the army health of the black ten times as sure as that of the white,—by all these things they have shown that the Father of History, who is our earliest classical authority, was not entirely mistaken, when he spoke of Ethiopia as “the most distant region of the earth, whose inhabitants are the tallest, most beautiful, and most long-lived of the human race.”[159] Even if these acts of the National Government were less significant, all doubt is removed by the Rebel Slavemongers themselves, who, in Satanic audacity, openly avow that Slavery is the end and aim of the government they seek to establish, so that the whole bloody war they wage is all in the name of Slavery. Therefore, in battling against the Rebellion, we battle against Slavery. Freedom is the growing inspiration of our armies and the just inscription of our banners. Such a war is not a war of subjugation, but a war of liberation, to save the Republic from a petty oligarchy of taskmasters, and to rescue four millions of human beings from cruel oppression. Not to subjugate, but to liberate, is the object of our Holy War.

And yet British statesmen, forgetting for the moment all moral distinctions, forgetting God, who will not be forgotten, gravely announce that our cause must fail. Alas! individual wickedness is too often successful; but a pretended nation, suckled in wickedness and boasting its wickedness, a new Sodom, with all the guilt of the old, waiting to be blasted, and yet, in barefaced effrontery, openly seeking the fellowship of Christian powers, is doomed to defeat. Toleration of such a pretension is practical atheism. Chronology and geography are both offended. Piety stands aghast. In this age of light, and in countries boasting civilization, there can be no place for its barbarous plenipotentiaries. As well expect crocodiles crawling on the pavements of London and Paris, or the carnivorous idols of Africa installed for worship in Westminster Abbey and Notre Dame.

Even if the Republic were less strong, yet I am glad to believe that the Rebellion must fail from the essential impossibility of any such wicked success. The responsibilities of the Christian powers would be increased by our weakness. Behind our blockade there would be a moral blockade; behind our armies there would be the aroused judgment of the civilized world. But not on that account can we hesitate. This is no time to pause. Thus do I, who formerly pleaded so often for Peace, now insist upon Liberty as its indispensable condition,[160]—clearly because, in this terrible moment, there is no other way to that sincere and solid peace without which is endless war. Even on economic grounds, it were better that this war should proceed rather than recognize any partition, which, beginning with humiliation, must involve the perpetuation of armaments and break out again in blood. But there is something worse than waste of money; it is waste of character. Give me any peace but a liberticide peace. In other days the immense eloquence of Burke was stirred against a regicide peace. But a peace founded on the killing of a king is not so bad as a peace founded on the killing of Liberty; nor can the saddest scenes of such a peace be so sad as the daily life legalized by Slavery. A queen on the scaffold is not so pitiful a sight as a woman on the auction-block.

While thus steady in purpose at home, we must not neglect that proper moderation abroad which becomes the consciousness of strength and the nobleness of our cause. The mistaken sympathy which foreign powers bestow upon Slavery,—or, it may be, the mistaken insensibility,—under the plausible name of “neutrality,” which they profess, will be worse for them than for us. For them it will be a record of shame, which their children would gladly blot out with tears. For us it will be only another obstacle vanquished in the battle for Civilization, where, unhappily, false friends are mingled with open enemies. Even if the cause seem for a while imperilled by foreign powers, yet our duties are none the less urgent. If the pressure be great, the resistance must be greater. Nor can there be any retreat. Come weal or woe, this is the place for us to stand.

I know not if a republic like ours can count even now upon the certain friendship of any European power, unless it be the Republic of William Tell. The very name is unwelcome to the full-blown representatives of monarchical Europe, who forget how proudly, even in modern history, Venice bore the title of Serenissima Respublica. It is for us to change all this. Our consistent example will be enough. Thus far we have been known chiefly through that vital force which Slavery could only degrade, but not subdue. Now, at last, by the death of Slavery, will the Republic begin to live. For what is life without Liberty? Stretching from ocean to ocean, teeming with population, bountiful in resources of all kinds, rejoicing in that righteousness which exalteth a nation, and thrice happy in universal enfranchisement, it will be more than conqueror. Nothing too vast for its power, nothing too minute for its care. Triumphant over the foulest wrong ever inflicted, after the bloodiest war ever waged, it will know the majesty of Right and the beauty of Peace, prepared always to uphold the one and to cultivate the other. Strong in its own mighty stature, filled with all the fulness of a new life, and covered with a panoply of renown, it will confess that no dominion is of value that does not contribute to human happiness. Born in this latter day and child of its own struggles, without ancestral claim, but heir of all the ages, it will stand forth to assert the dignity of man, and wherever any member of the Human Family can be succored, there its voice will reach,—as the voice of Cromwell reached across France, even to the persecuted mountaineers of the Alps. Such will be this Republic, upstart among the nations. Ay! as steam-engine, telegraph, and chloroform are upstart. Comforter and helper like these, it can know no bounds to its empire over a willing world. But the first stage is the death of Slavery.

APPENDIX.

This speech was made at a crisis in our foreign relations when they were watched with more than the wonted anxiety, which began with the hasty concession of belligerent rights, as early as May 13, 1861. Among painful incidents may be mentioned the affair of the Trent, with the attendant menace, the escape of the Florida, and then of the Alabama, the damage to our commerce by these British vessels, the report of other vessels building for the Rebels, the swarm of British blockade-runners with arms and powerful cannon, adverse speeches of British statesmen, offensive articles of the British press, and movements for the recognition of the Rebels as an independent power.

As early as March 4, 1861, Mr. Gregory gave notice in the House of Commons that on an early day he would call the attention of her Majesty’s Government to the expediency of a prompt recognition of the Southern Confederacy of America. April 16, Mr. Gregory renewed his notice, and added a call for papers. This motion was afterward deferred from April 30 to May 13, and on May 16 until June 7, when it was finally postponed sine die. After that frequent debates occurred in both Houses of Parliament, involving the course of England to the United States. As late as June 30, 1863, in the summer before Mr. Sumner’s speech, a long debate was started in the House of Commons by Mr. Roebuck, on presenting a petition praying the House to enter into negotiations with the great powers of Europe with the object of recognizing the independence of the Confederate States. To all these things was now superadded the open construction at Birkenhead of two powerful iron-clad war-vessels, known as the Rebel rams.

The country was alarmed, for the contribution of these powerful vessels to the Rebel navy was felt to be an open participation in the Rebellion. Foreign war seemed to menace. Mr. Sumner, in private correspondence with England during the summer, did not hesitate to say, that, in his judgment, the sailing of these Rebel rams from an English port, after the ample notice given, would be equivalent to a declaration of war by England, not unlike the seizure of the Spanish galleons or the bombardment of Copenhagen. Our diplomatic correspondence shows a similar sentiment in important official quarters. July 11, Mr. Adams, our minister at London, after setting forth “a systematic plan of warfare upon the people of the United States carried on from the port of Liverpool, as well as in less degree from other ports in the kingdom,” called the attention of Earl Russell to “the construction and equipment of a steam vessel of war of the most formidable kind now known,” and intimated that such a proceeding would “be regarded by the Government and people of the United States with the greatest alarm, as virtually tantamount to a participation in the war by the people of Great Britain.”[161] At different times he transmitted additional papers, showing the character of these vessels. Meanwhile one iron-clad ram, being launched, received her engines, and was engaged in receiving her coal, ready to depart, when, September 4, Mr. Adams, transmitting further testimony, begged permission to record, in the name of his Government, “this last solemn protest against the commission of such an act of hostility against a friendly nation.”[162] On the same day he received a communication from Earl Russell, bearing date September 1, where, after setting forth the alleged insufficiency of the testimony against the vessels, he says: “Her Majesty’s Government are advised that they cannot interfere in any way with these vessels.”[163] The next day Mr. Adams replied: “I trust I need not express how profound is my regret at the conclusion to which her Majesty’s Government have arrived.… It would be superfluous in me to point out to your Lordship that this is war. No matter what may be the theory adopted of neutrality in a struggle, when this process is carried on, in the manner indicated, from a territory and with the aid of the subjects of a third party, that third party, to all intents and purposes, ceases to be neutral. Neither is it necessary to show that any government which suffers it to be done fails in enforcing the essential conditions of international amity towards the country against whom the hostility is directed.”[164] On the very day of this reply, Mr. Seward, at Washington, addressed Mr. Adams as follows: “Can the British Government suppose for a moment that such an assault as is thus meditated can be made upon us by British built, armed, and manned vessels, without at once arousing the whole nation and making a retaliatory war inevitable?… For the interest of both countries, and of civilization, I hope they will not let a blow fall from under their hands that will render peace impossible.”[165] Mr. Beaman, in his essay on the Alabama Claims, after examining this correspondence, says, it “shows, that, if these rams had been allowed to escape, peace between Great Britain and the United States would have been no longer possible.”[166]

It is easy to see that the two countries were on the verge of war. Happily, this was avoided by a tardy act, made known to Mr. Adams by a note, under date of September 8: “Lord Russell presents his compliments to Mr. Adams, and has the honor to inform him that instructions have been issued which will prevent the departure of the two iron-clad vessels from Liverpool.”[167] The Rebel rams were stopped.

Meanwhile Mr. Sumner had accepted an invitation to speak in New York on our foreign relations, at a time to be fixed by himself. Watching the course of events, and seeing clearly the alternative that presented itself to Mr. Adams and Mr. Seward, he wrote at the close of August, fixing September 10th for his speech; and here his purpose was twofold. Anxious to arrest the fatal tendency, he was not without hope that he might obtain a hearing in England, especially from the Cabinet, to most of whom he was personally known; but, if unsuccessful in this last frank effort for peace, then he trusted that his speech would be a vindication of his country on the issue forced by England, and an appeal to the moral sentiments of the civilized world. On this account he dwelt especially on Slavery, and the impossibility in a civilized age of recognizing a new power openly proclaiming this Barbarism as its corner-stone.

The reception of this speech at home was cordial and sympathetic; in England it was the reverse, although there were friendly exceptions. A few extracts from the American press will show the unison with Mr. Sumner, which becomes important in illustrating his position, and also the divergence of sentiment in the two countries.

The New York press was outspoken.

The Herald said:—

“The very voluminous speech of Mr. Senator Sumner at the Cooper Institute, the other evening, in two or three points is a remarkable production. His exposure and denunciations of the hypocritical pleadings and false pretences of the British Government, in justification of its sneaking and perfidious neutrality in this war, are well administered, and, considering the rapidly dissolving Davis Confederacy, these views of the learned Senator at this time can hardly fail to make a decided sensation, not only upon the public mind of England, but upon the rhinoceros hides of the British Cabinet.…

“But the whole of this exhaustive and exhausting discourse of the inexhaustible Senator is spoiled by his venomous and rabid denunciations of African Slavery. In view of this peculiar Southern institution he becomes as fierce and remorseless as a vicious bull, when a piece of red flannel is flaunted before his eyes.”

The Times said:—

“We give up one half of the entire surface of to-day’s issue of the Times to the important speech upon our Foreign Relations delivered by Senator Sumner in this city last night. The subject at the present moment is one of such deep public interest, and of such overshadowing national importance, that we believe we cannot do a greater service than by giving in full the views of one who, by his official position as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, by his relations with some of the foremost publicists of England and France, and by his intimate knowledge of the whole subject, is capable of speaking with intelligence, if not with authority.

“We can give no analysis or estimate of the discourse at this moment, as it was a late hour of the night before he concluded its delivery; but every intelligent citizen will doubtless give due study to its views and statements, which, we need not say, are set forth in a style highly ornate, yet lucid, and distinguished by all the characteristics of a professed orator.”

The Evening Post said:—

“It is a very important subject, treated by him with great ability and knowledge, and in a manner which must leave little to be added by the diligence of others. It was listened to with profound attention and frequent expressions of interest and approbation by one of the most closely packed audiences which the hall at Cooper Institute ever contained.”

Horace Greeley, in a contribution to the Independent, said:—

“Mr. Sumner’s speech is not, therefore, a mere rehearsal and arraignment of national wrongs already endured. It is a protest and a warning against those which are imminently threatened. In showing how deeply, flagrantly, France and England have already sinned against us, he admonishes them against persistence in the evil course on which they have entered, against aggravating beyond endurance the indignities and outrages they have already heaped upon us.… Mr. Sumner’s is the authentic voice, not of the mob, but of the people. He utters the sentiments of the conscientious, the intelligent, the peace-loving. His inoffensive protest against the wrongs to which we have been subjected is utterly devoid of swagger or menace. It is a simple, but most cogent demonstration, by the application thereto of the established principles of International Law, of the systematic injustice to which we as a people have been subjected. A miracle of historical and statesmanlike erudition, his address is severe without being harsh,—an indictment judicial in its calmness, its candor, its resistless cogency.”

The Boston Journal said:—

“We trust no one will be deterred by its length from reading Mr. Sumner’s speech on our Foreign Relations; and we are sure that no one will be, who fairly enters upon the subject.… The speech is the most able and elaborate ever delivered by Mr. Sumner, and will be read with great interest abroad as well as in this country. Let us hope that it will help to open the eyes of the people of England and France to the treachery of their rulers to the progress of civilization and the spirit of the age.”

Then, in another article, the same journal said:—

“The recent speech of Mr. Sumner meets with the warmest expressions of commendation from all quarters, excepting, of course, the journals which are wedded to the interests of Slavery.… The speech was, in fact, timely, and, while it was designed primarily to communicate facts of the gravest interest to the people of the loyal States, it will have the secondary and not less important effect of making an impression upon the Cabinets of England and France. The fairness, candor, earnestness, and ability with which great questions of international rights are discussed by a statesman so well known abroad and so much respected as Mr. Sumner must secure for the speech an attentive perusal by those who shape public opinion in the Old World.”

A correspondent of the Boston Journal, calling himself “An European Democrat,” wrote:—

“The speech of Senator Sumner at the Cooper Institute will produce a startling effect in Europe. It may safely be asserted that the opinions of that gentleman upon international politics are received with greater favor in England and France than those of perhaps any other American statesman. He is regarded as most liberal and cosmopolitan in his views; his acquaintance with leading public men in both countries is known to be alike extended and intimate; and such declarations, therefore, as those to which he gave utterance last Thursday evening will necessarily have extraordinary weight in political and commercial circles.”

The Transcript, of Boston, said:—

“The great speech of Senator Sumner upon the Foreign Relations of the United States will command the attention of all intelligent men in Europe and America. It is a thorough and exhaustive discussion of English and French diplomacy, so far as either bears upon the present war. The effect of the complete exposition of the policy of Great Britain with regard to Slavery since 1807, proving, by clear and irrefragable historical instances, the apostasy of the existing ministry to the high principles so long maintained, must be great among all reflective Englishmen.… Mr. Sumner’s comprehensive views of International Law, the extensive learning with which he enriches the discussion of it, his convincing logic and kindling eloquence, together with the results he reaches, make this address one of great importance, and cannot but exert the most beneficial influence in this country and in Europe.”

The Independent, of New York, in a leading article entitled “Sumner and Burke,” presented an elaborate parallel between the recent speech and that against Warren Hastings.

“The trial of Hastings was really a trial of England herself. So Burke evidently felt it. The bill of charges and the speech upon them was more of an appeal against the rulers of England than the despot of India.… As he arraigned England against herself, so does Sumner. As he sought to flatter her to the right by appeals to her highest professions and practices against the swift current of her ruling passions and purposes, so does Sumner. As he failed in his attempt, so, we fear, will Sumner.… Grander is his position, as well as his appeal, than those of Burke. He stood before a House of British nobles: Sumner stands before the Congress of Nations. Burke impeached the conduct of a satrap: Sumner the heads of powerful nations. Burke denounced him in the name of justice and law outraged by his abuse of subject provinces: Sumner denounces England in the interests of outraged internationality and humanity, for her conduct toward a free and equal nation engaged in casting out the devils that Britain’s lust of gold and power had forced upon her in the days of her helplessness. He has constrained the haughty powers to appear at the bar of the Nations. The world will hear his plea, and give him the verdict.”

Zion’s Herald, of Boston, an able religious journal, said:—

“This speech is not hostile in its tone, unless our transatlantic friends see fit to make it so. It is a grand effort in behalf of those principles which are to underlie our renovated nationality; it is a noble assertion of our rights against wrongs which are emphatically condemned by the best minds of England and France themselves. If our sister nations will heed this appeal, and cease to give the support hitherto accorded to our foes, it is not too late for them to gain thereby the friendship of our people and the praise of mankind; but if any European power should now directly espouse the cause of the Rebellion, the responsibility of war will rest with them and not with us; and even if they continue to grant the Rebels their sympathy and moral support, the severe words of Mr. Sumner will be but a faint expression of the infamy to which an indignant posterity will consign them.”

The New York correspondent of The Congregationalist, at Boston, wrote:—

“The whole country owes Mr. Sumner a debt of gratitude for this timely, thorough, and weighty exposition of our Foreign Relations. Its facts and arguments must produce a strong impression upon the popular mind in England; and every American who has friends abroad should hasten to put in circulation in Great Britain as many copies of the speech as he can command. Its tone, at once dignified, firm, and conciliatory, will help our cause wherever it is read, while it cannot fail to ally to us all who really value truth and honor between nations, and who abhor Slavery and its abettors.”

Numerous letters, in harmony with the press of the country, attested the extent to which Mr. Sumner was sustained, being spontaneous testimony to the prevailing sentiment. Written as they were for the purpose of sympathy and encouragement, they show the general conscience and intelligence. Prompted by the speech, and relating exclusively to it, they may be considered among its incidents. The warm appreciation of Mr. Sumner’s service was less important than the aspiration for country and for mankind which they disclosed.

Mr. Seward wrote from the Department of State:—

“I have read your address on Foreign Relations without once stopping.

“You have performed a very important public service in a most able manner, and in a conjuncture when I hope that it will be useful abroad and at home.…

“You are on the right track. Rouse the nationality of the American people. It is an instinct upon which you can always rely, even when the conscience that ought never to slumber is drugged to death.”

Mr. Chase wrote from the Treasury Department:—

“In spite of finest print almost illegible, I have read your great speech from beginning to end. It is a noble effort, quite worthy of you. It exhausts the whole subject, leaving nothing even for a gleaner. I shall await with curiosity, not unmixed with anxiety, the rebound from Europe.”

Hon. Thomas Corwin, Minister Plenipotentiary in Mexico, wrote:—

“I cannot withhold my mite of praise for the truly masterly manner and matter of the whole pamphlet. Your country, Europe, all Christendom, and Heathendom too, are your debtors.”

Hon. Christopher Robinson, Minister Plenipotentiary in Peru, wrote:—

“I have read it with great attention, and with the highest pleasure, for the principles it announces, the facts it narrates, and the firm and manly discussion of them. As an explanation of the great principles of International Law applicable to the nefarious Rebellion, it will open the eyes of the American people to the important fact, that, in all its disguises, English and French policy has wilfully ignored the principles of justice and liberty which the Government of the United States are struggling to maintain.”

Hon. Horatio J. Perry, Secretary of Legation at Madrid, wrote:—

“Your noble effort was well timed. I have had portions of it reproduced in the Spanish press with the best effect. Another part will reappear here in a more durable form, which I shall take pains to send you.

“These admonitions of yours to the European powers have always been of the highest possible service. Whatever necessity there may have been (and there has been necessity) for our diplomatic representatives to act with consummate prudence in our direct intercourse with the courts hostile to us, it was no less necessary that the voice from home, the utterances of our Houses of Congress, of our leading Senators, should be bold and unsubdued,—confidence in ourselves and in our cause, above all, the consciousness of right, and the evidence that we were not afraid.”

Professor Charles D. Cleveland, Consul at Cardiff, wrote from his consulate:—

“I need hardly say with what pleasure I read your recent speech at New York. Though Earl Russell did not like some things in it, it evidently did him much good. I think I saw clearly that he felt the force of your arguments; for, if you will notice, it was not till after your speech had reached this country, and after quotations were made from it in papers friendly to us, that the more decided orders were given to stop the Rebel rams in the Mersey.”

The latter statement is confirmed by a despatch of Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward, dated October 16, where he says: “The Government has, within the past week, adopted measures of a much more positive character than heretofore to stop the steam-rams.”[168]

Hon. T. O. Howe, Senator of the United States, wrote from Wisconsin:—

“Stopping here, where I am to speak this evening, I cannot refrain from telling you that I approve it. How much I approve it I am utterly unable to tell you.

“Such conciseness of statement, such fulness of research, such wealth of illustration, such iron logic, heated, but unmalleable, I really do not think are to be found in any other oration, ancient or modern.

“To me it seems bursting with new and most inspiring ideas. But even when you deal with ideas which are not new, but old and familiar, you present them in words so marvellously chosen that they are themselves giant forces.…

“No single man has ever so grandly struggled against the barbaric tendencies of a frightfully debauched generation. I cannot certainly foresee the future; you may be worsted in this encounter; but I know the world will be the better for it.”

Hon. Henry B. Anthony, Senator of the United States, wrote from Providence:—

“I suppose you are tired of compliments about your great speech. Everybody says it is one of the best things that even you have done. It must have a large and beneficial effect, not only here, but in Europe, where your reputation will secure for it the consideration of those who control public affairs and mould public opinion.”

Hon. Samuel S. Blair, a Representative in Congress from Pennsylvania, wrote:—

“I have just read your New York speech on our Foreign Relations, and most cordially thank you for a statement of our cause which ought to give us the verdict of the civilized world.”

Hon. Joshua R. Giddings, for so many years eminent as Antislavery champion in Congress, and then Consul-General at Montreal, wrote:—

“I have just read your lecture at Cooper Institute. That production excites in my heart the deepest gratitude and the highest pleasure.”

Hon. Simon Cameron, who had recently returned from Russia, where he had been Minister, wrote:—

“It is a masterly production of a master mind, and if you had never made a single mental effort before, or if you should cease from this moment to enjoy the power of speech, it would stand as a monument unrivalled among the many great productions of American and British statesmen. It is unanswerable. Its influence, like all great ideas founded on truth, may be comparatively slow, but it is already acting over the world, and in a brief period it will be so potent that men and nations will be ashamed to avow a belief in any other code of morals.”

Rev. William H. Furness, the accomplished Unitarian preacher of Philadelphia, wrote:—

“I have no words to express my sense of the large familiarity with human affairs, and of the conscientious fidelity which it shows. If you had done nothing else for the past year but prepare that, I should hold you to be a miracle of work. It is impossible it should not tell. It indicates a statesmanship fitting the grandeur of our unequalled cause.”

Dr. Henry I. Bowditch, of Boston, eminent in the medical profession and as an Abolitionist, wrote:—

“Allow me to express to you my most hearty thanks for your noble, and, as it seems to me, unanswerable, speech at New York. It is truly statesmanlike, and I regard it in that light as one that will last longer and have more effect than any delivered by any one in this country since the war began. It must have a wide influence in Europe. I thank you, therefore, most heartily for it. It will aid mightily public sentiment in England, and tend to force the Government of that country, for consistency’s sake, at least, to deal more fairly.”

Parker Pillsbury, the earnest Abolitionist, wrote from Concord, New Hampshire:—

“When a nation is expressing its admiring gratitude for your recent masterly oration on our Foreign Relations, what place or what need for my feeble utterance remains? And all the nations will thank you, as they shall read, in present and coming time, this chapter in the new political dispensation. It is a scripture for the ages.”

Hon. Amasa Walker, formerly a Representative in Congress, a Vice-President of the American Peace Society, devoted to the cause of peace, and a writer on political economy and finance, wrote:—

“It is the grandest thing you have yet done, if I am qualified to judge. I think it cannot fail to exert a great influence at home and abroad. I am quite anxious to find out how it is received in England, and am much mistaken, if it does not produce a great impression.

“The friends of our Government will be greatly delighted at it, our enemies greatly annoyed by it.

“I have the impression that there is no speech of any American statesman, that has ever been printed, that will secure such a lasting reputation, and be so often referred to in the future, as this.”

Hon. George R. Russell, of various experience, who had recently returned from Europe, wrote:—

“I have often thought of writing you about your speech on our Foreign Relations, which I read with much attention, and decided that it was the best that could be said. I met a friend of ours a few evenings since, and he told me that he had said to you that you made a great mistake in assailing England as you had done. I met him with the rejoinder, that you had hit the nail on the head, that the proofs of change we see daily are in consequence of your attacks, and that, instead of upbraiding you, we owed you our heartfelt thanks for the good you had done.”

Brigadier-General Saxton, of the United States army, wrote from his station at Beaufort, South Carolina:—

“I can hardly express to you the intense satisfaction and delight with which I read your great oration delivered in New York. In my humble opinion you have rendered a great service to our country and to humanity. The words of truth and wisdom which you have spoken cannot fail to command the attention and respect of the statesmen of England as well as of this country.”

Captain George Ward Nichols, of the United States army, wrote from his station at Milwaukee:—

“I hardly know what to say of this eloquent exposition, so full of righteous indignation, terrible denunciation, exhaustive research, unanswerable argument,—so abundant, so powerful, and so eloquent in the cause of humanity. It seems to me like a timepiece, which, with unfailing faith, I consult to mark the hour in a stormy day, unmindful of the wondrous art and wit which combine this perfect whole. I thank you more than I can say for this noble speech. It is already a part of the history of this momentous time. It is as much a fact as is Gettysburg or Vicksburg.”

George Baty Blake, Esq., a banker of Boston, wrote:—

“I have read attentively your speech made in New York, and, let me say, I think it exactly suited to the occasion; and if it finds circulation in Great Britain, it cannot fail to do us much good in our foreign relations. Plain speech with John Bull, and to the point frankly, is what always proves most effective with him, in my experience.”

The late James A. Dix, editor of the Boston Journal, declared his sympathies:—

“I cannot resist the temptation to express the pleasure which the perusal of your speech on our Foreign Relations has afforded me. I do not think it extravagant to say that it is the ablest speech ever delivered in this country. Certainly it is the ablest of any with which it could appropriately be compared. In the number, value, interest, and importance of its historical facts and precedents, in the apt use of materials derived from laborious research, and in the lucid treatment of the topics discussed, it is unsurpassed.”

Major B. Perley Poore, for a long period connected with the press, wrote from his country home:—

“If human gratitude be among the number of our national virtues, the highest honors should contribute to reward you for your address on Foreign Relations, so replete with patriotism, learning, and practical knowledge, knowledge of public law and the practice of nations, a thorough acquaintance with civil government and the great question of Freedom which underlies and overtops everything else. I have read it twice in the small type of the Journal.”

Pliny Miles, the writer on Postal Affairs, wrote from London to President Lincoln, who forwarded the letter to Mr. Sumner:—

“Mr. Sumner’s late speech in New York has arrived here in the journals, and is attracting a great deal of attention. Quotations and extracts are made from it in the leading liberal papers; but really the whole speech ought to be printed here, and circulated in pamphlet form. If sent to all the members of both Houses of Parliament and to the press, I think it would do great good.”

Daniel R. Goodloe, for a long time connected with the press, then of Washington and afterwards of North Carolina, wrote:—

“I regard Lord Russell’s speech at Blairgowrie as a reply to yours; and the country is indebted to you for the important concessions he makes, and for the greatly modified tone in which he speaks of our affairs.”

Hon. A. C. Barstow, formerly Mayor of Providence, wrote:—

“I returned from Washington this morning. Have read your speech with great satisfaction. I think you have touched the public pulse more widely than ever before.”

The speech had a different reception in England, being criticized by the press, and by Earl Russell in a public speech.

The New York correspondent of the London Standard called Mr. Sumner “the mouthpiece of the President,” and said that the speech “had been carefully examined by the President, and was analyzed by the confidential members of the Cabinet, before being let off to the public in this great city.” This was a mistake. Neither the President nor any of his Cabinet had seen a line of the speech.

Its delivery was reported by the London Times of September 22d, in a telegraphic despatch from Greencastle, in Ireland:—

“He denounced the conduct of the British Government in permitting the building of war steamers in British ports for the Confederates and recognizing on the part of the South any belligerent rights upon the ocean. He disbelieved that either France or England would intervene in favor of a state that based itself upon Negro Slavery, and asserted that all intervention in the internal affairs of another nation was contrary to law and reason, unless such intervention were obviously on the side of human rights.”

The Times followed with an elaborate leader, undertaking to correct statements of law and fact, dwelling especially on the allegation, that, without the concession of belligerent rights, the supply of munitions of war to rebels would have been a violation of English law. Here Mr. Sumner had the authority of the English Law Lords in Parliament, openly declaring that without such concession the building of a Rebel ship in England would have been under the penalties of piracy, and it is difficult to see why a corresponding penalty would not have followed the supply of munitions of war. In each case the article is supplied for offence against a friendly power. Sir George Cornewall Lewis, remarkable for learning and good sense, has said: “The law of England recognizes the principle of protecting a foreign government by its own municipal regulations”[169]; and he refers to the trials for libels on foreign sovereigns, and also to the proceedings in 1858 against Simon Bernard, the Frenchman, indicted for a plot to assassinate the Emperor Louis Napoleon, in supplying the grenades used by Orsini in his attempt. In the latter case, Lord Chief Justice Campbell said to the jury: “If you believe that he, as there is strong evidence to show, being acquainted with Allsop’s views, and knowing that Allsop had got these grenades, assisted in having them, transported to Brussels,—if you believe that he bought in this country the materials for making the fulminating powder with which these grenades were charged,—if you believe, that, living in this country, and owing a temporary allegiance to the sovereign of this country, he sent over the revolvers with the view that they should be used in the plot against the Emperor of the French, … it will be a fair inference, I think, to draw, that he had a guilty knowledge of that plot.”[170] Though this judgment was in the case of a conspiracy to take the life of a foreign sovereign, it is not easy to see why the same principle is not applicable to a conspiracy against a friendly power. To this case may be added the authority of Lord Lyndhurst, who laid it down in debate, with the concurrence of other Law Lords, that a conspiracy in the United Kingdom, either by native subjects or aliens, to do any act, either at home or abroad, tending to embroil the Government with that of any foreign country, is a misdemeanor.[171] Is a rebellion without belligerent rights different from a conspiracy? Its nature was changed by the Queen’s Proclamation, which not only helped the Rebels, but created a new set of customers.

The character of the leader in the Times appears in its conclusion:—

“We believe our readers have by this time had enough of the logic of Mr. Sumner. It is based neither on law nor on fact, but upon his own sympathies and antipathies, which he is pleased to assume must also be ours, on the supposition, which we do not admit, that the North are obviously in the right, and on the inference, which we refuse to draw, that, even if the North are in the right, we are bound to violate the laws of neutrality in order to assist them.”

The Daily News, of London, in its first notice, said:—

“He spoke under the impression that the English Government was about to permit the Confederate iron-clads to leave this country, and he interpreted their previous policy by this supposed breach of neutrality. Every candid man will make allowance for words spoken under provocation, and distinguish them from the utterances of settled malevolence, such as we were accustomed to hear from the American statesmen now at Richmond, and still hear from their allies in the Northern States.”

In a second article, the same journal criticized the speech at length, saying:—

“It is a strange delusion. It makes one wonder whether it is still possible that a republican legislator, now blinded by panic and perplexed by jealousy, should even yet recover his sense and temper, and see the case as others see it.… Instead of using his influence, as the friend of many Englishmen, to bring the two peoples to a clear understanding, and the calm temper which arises out of it, he has nourished and propagated a delusion, and has applied all his powers of influence and eloquence to raise and kindle the passions of his countrymen against a nation which, if not accustomed to flatter, is capable of a sound and durable friendship with a people exhibiting such qualities as the citizens of the Free States are manifesting now. The American people have nothing to fear from us, while they treat us justly. We believe that Mr. Sumner knows this as well as we do, however he may be for the hour beguiled into passion and error.”

The Scotsman, of Edinburgh, said:—

“The splendid oration which he delivered at New York on the 10th inst., though full of a strange injustice towards ourselves, ought not to lessen our love for the man, and will increase our admiration of the orator and philanthropist; but, if there was any idea that Mr. Sumner could reason clearly as well as feel rightly and speak eloquently, that idea will be dissipated. All the multitude of eloquent and burning words which he pours forth against Slavery will here find ready echo; and even when he enters on accusations against this country, as having ‘intermeddled on the side of Slavery,’ it will be felt that he speaks in the spirit, not of a mean and jealous enemy, but of a high-minded, though mistaken friend. But no non-American man can fail to perceive that there is a grand mistake lying at the root of all the complaints he makes against us: he would have Great Britain in her national capacity to deal with American affairs according to moral sentiments as distinguished from political rules, and he condemns her for doing what he did himself and is doing still.… He tries, indeed, to make a difference between the hypothetical Confederate States and all other Slave States, including the late United States. They will, he says, form a ‘new’ Slave Power. He forgets, that, though the Power may be new, the Slavery will be old.”

The Manchester Guardian said:—

“We receive by the last steamer from New York the report of a speech recently delivered by a person of great consideration in the councils of the present Government at Washington, who maintains that the favor already given to the Confederacy by England deserves the execration of humanity, and supplies, if necessary, abundant cause for war. The speaker to whom we allude is Mr. Charles Sumner, the President of the Committee of the Senate on Foreign Affairs. He denounced, we are told, as ‘a betrayal of civilization,’ England’s recognition of the Confederate States as belligerents, and her proclamation of neutrality. The absurd injustice of this often repeated complaint is sufficiently shown by the simple observation, that, in recognizing the belligerent rights of the South, we did exactly what the Federal Government itself did, and has continued to do from the commencement of the war. We did, moreover, what no power could have avoided, without absolutely intending to take a direct part in the subjugation of the seceding States. But Mr. Sumner correctly appreciates the consequences of this course, as adopted by ourselves and France, in perceiving that it insured to the South the free exercise of all the power of making war from its own resources which an independent state could possess.”

The Economist, of London, a weekly journal, in an article entitled “Mr. Sumner’s Speech at New York,” among many remarks of bad temper and doubtful candor, said:—

“Mr. Charles Sumner has been delivering a speech before a crowded audience in New York which will cause much pain and disappointment to all friends and well-wishers of the Federal United States. It is weak in argument, unfair and unjust in its representations, and bitter in tone and temper. If men of Mr. Sumner’s education and position in America really believe the things they say and indulge the feelings to which they give utterance, it is clearly hopeless to attempt either to enlighten their understanding or to allay their irritation.…

“Two other considerations will fully justify us in describing Mr. Sumner’s address as marked by the most distinctly unfair and unfriendly animus toward this country. The first is, that he has carefully avoided doing the slightest justice to the strong Antislavery feeling which prevails among us, and even insinuates a disposition to favor the slave empire of the South.…

“Finally, what construction is to be placed upon the remarkable circumstance, that, throughout his whole address, while endeavoring to rouse the wrath of his countrymen by a vicious enumeration of the supposed offences of Great Britain, he says not a word against France, which has participated in nearly all, and added others of her own? He charges us with hostile designs, because we recognized belligerent rights in the Confederates; but he utters no word of complaint against France, who recognized these at the same date and in the same terms.”

Referring to Mr. Sumner’s speech, it will be seen how untrue is the statement that he said “not a word against France”; nor is it true that he was unjust to “the strong Antislavery feeling” which had done so much honor to English history, although he lamented that it was impotent to save England from fatal concession to Rebel Slavery.

There was a critical spirit in the provincial press. The Halifax Reporter, in Nova Scotia, said:—

“Mr. Sumner, whose judgment is evidently warped by his abhorrence of Slavery, seems to expect that England should look upon the North as waging the war on behalf of human liberty. It is obvious he considers, that, in recognizing the Confederates as belligerents, her statesmen have exhibited a sympathy with slaveholders which is unjustifiable.…

“Mr. Sumner is peculiarly wrathy that any portion of the British people should have been allowed to give aid and comfort to the Rebels by affording them supplies of various kinds.”

The Globe, at Toronto, said:—

“He reviews the whole transactions between England and the United States since the commencement of the civil war with great warmth, beginning with the proclamation of neutrality and ending with Mr. Laird’s rams, and tortures every action of the British Government into a manifestation of unfriendliness towards the Republic. We expected from Mr. Sumner more enlightened consideration for the circumstances in which the English people have been placed, and some acknowledgment of the provocation they have received from this side of the Atlantic.…

“There is only one excuse for Mr. Sumner. As an Abolitionist, he has been accustomed to look to England for sympathy and aid, and he is disappointed to find so many enemies where he supposed he would see none but friends. This feeling should not prevent him, however, from doing justice as a publicist, nor, as a statesman, from pursuing the course most wise and expedient at the moment.”

In a different tone, the Morning Star, of London, the constant friend of the national cause, said:—

“The Hon. Charles Sumner has not belied the confidence inspired by a long and illustrious career. He is as firmly as ever the friend of peace, and especially of peace between Great Britain and America. The eloquent voice which has so often employed the stores of a richly furnished mind in persuasives to international amity has not, as the telegrams suggested, been inflamed by the heat of domestic conflict to the diffusion of discord between kindred peoples. His speech at New York on the 10th of September is, indeed, heavy with charges against France and England. But it is an appeal for justice, not an incentive to strife. It is a complaint of hopes disappointed, of friendship withheld, of errors hastily adopted and obstinately maintained. It is, however, an argument which does honor even to those against whom it is urged, and which aims to establish future relations of the closest alliance. Senator Sumner’s chief reproach is this,—that we have acted unworthily of ourselves, unfaithfully to our deepest convictions and best memories.…

“There runs through the whole of Mr. Sumner’s gigantic oration—far too long to have been spoken as printed, but yet without a word of superfluous argument or declamation—an idea on which we can now only touch. From the first sentence to the last, Slavery is present to his mind. It colors all his reasoning. It inspires him to prodigious eloquence. Not merely as the Senator for Massachusetts, the honored chieftain of the political Abolitionists, but as Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, he sees everywhere the presence of the Slave Power. Against it he invokes, in periods of classic beauty and of fervid strength, all the moral forces of the mother country. To England he makes a passionate and pathetic appeal—more for her own sake than that of the slave, more for the sake of the future than of present effects—that she withdraw all favor and succor from Rebel slave-owners.”

The Northern Whig, of Belfast, Ireland, noticed especially the statement on ocean belligerence:—

“One point, however, on which Mr. Sumner dwells, is of such urgent present importance as to make the reproduction of his remarks, at such length as our space allows, desirable. We refer to his criticism of the claims of the Confederates to belligerent rights at sea. Whether the ground which Mr. Sumner takes on this question be or be not tenable, whether the authorities and examples by which he supports it really make out his case, is a matter not to be decided summarily. His argument is, beyond dispute, a most masterly one, and deserves the careful attention of the English Government and its legal advisers, and will, no doubt, engage the ingenuity of writers upon International Law.”

These expressions of opinion show something of the extent to which Mr. Sumner was sustained, and also the British criticism he encountered. To the latter must be added an unexpected episode.

Earl Russell was on a visit to Scotland when Mr. Sumner’s speech arrived. Being entertained at a public dinner in the Town-Hall of Blairgowrie, September 26th, he took that occasion to review the questions of the war, and especially to answer Mr. Sumner, thus making a new precedent. It is not known that any European statesman ever before made a speech criticizing a speech in another country. The part relating to us was approached by the remark, “I am speaking of what has occurred in what a few years ago were the United States of America”; and then, towards the end, he says, “The people of what were the United States, whether they are called Federals or Confederates.”

The following passages belong to this answer.

“It was impossible to look on the uprising of a community of five million people as a mere petty insurrection [‘Hear! hear!’], or as not having the rights which at all times are given to those who, by their numbers and importance, or by the extent of the territory they possess, are entitled to these rights. [Cheers.] Well, it was said we ought not to have done that, because they were a community of Slaveholders.

“Gentlemen, I trust that our abhorrence of Slavery is not in the least abated or diminished. [Loud and prolonged cheers.] For my own part, I consider it one of the most horrible crimes that yet disgrace humanity. [Cheers.] But then, when we are treating of the relations which we bear to a community of men, I doubt whether it would be expedient or useful for humanity that we should introduce that new element of declaring that we will have no relations with a people who permit Slavery to exist among them. We have never adopted it yet, we have not adopted it in the case of Spain or Brazil, and I do not believe that the cause of humanity would be served by our adoption of it. [‘Hear! hear!’]

“Well, then it was said that these Confederate States were Rebels,—Rebels against the Union. Perhaps, Gentlemen, I am not so nice as I ought to be on the subject. But I recollect that we rebelled against Charles the First [a laugh], we rebelled against James the Second, and the people of New England, not content with these two rebellions, rebelled against George the Third. [‘Hear!’ and laughter.] … But, certainly, if I look to the declarations of those New England orators,—and I have been reading lately, if not the whole, yet a very great part, of the very long speech by Mr. Sumner on the subject, delivered at New York,—I own, I cannot but wonder to see these men, the offspring, as it were, of three rebellions, as we are the offspring of two rebellions, really speaking, like the Czar of Russia, the Sultan of Turkey, or Louis the Fourteenth himself, of the dreadful crime and guilt of rebellion. [Loud laughter and cheers.] …

“I said, that in America, although there were some of the local courts which had not the authority of such men as Lord Stowell and Sir William Grant, yet there was a Court of Appeal, there was a Supreme Court, in the United States, which contained, and had for many years contained, men as learned and of as high reputation in the law and of as unsullied reputation for integrity as any that have sat in our English courts of justice, and that we ought to wait patiently for the decision of those tribunals. Now what is my surprise to find, and what would be your surprise to find, that Mr. Sumner is so prejudiced that he brings these declarations of mine against me, saying that I have diminished the reputation of the American Courts, and that I showed myself biased against the Federal States, by the declaration I then made in Parliament! [A gentleman from the Southern States among the company here ejaculated, ‘He is not to be believed.’]

“I will not detain you further on these subjects; but one remark I must make on the general tendency of these speeches and writings in America. The Government of America discusses these matters very fairly with the English Government. Sometimes we think them quite in the wrong; sometimes they say we are quite in the wrong; but we discuss them fairly, and with regard to the Secretary of State I see no complaint to make. I think he weighs the disadvantages and difficulties of our situation in a very fair and equal balance. But there are others, and Mr. Sumner is one of them, his speech being an epitome almost of all that has been contained in the American press, by whom our conduct is very differently judged.”

In defending the concession of belligerent rights to Rebel Slavery, Earl Russell forgot two things: first, that the Rebels, whatever their numbers, were without ports or Prize Courts, and therefore unable to administer justice on the ocean, which was essential to the protection of neutrals, and, in the nature of things, the condition precedent of any such concession; and, secondly, he forgot, that, whatever might be the traditional relations with existing nations “permitting Slavery to exist among them,” it was now proposed, for the first time in history, to recognize a rebel community seeking to found a new nation whose declared corner-stone was Slavery, which Mr. Sumner insisted was contrary to good morals and the Antislavery principles so constantly and loftily avowed by England.

On another occasion Earl Russell seems to have laid down a rule requiring Prize Courts, as will be seen in Mr. Sumner’s speech.[172] He insisted that vessels seized should be tried in a Prize Court. If this rule is correct, how vindicate the award of belligerent rights to a community without Prize Courts? Another question may also be asked: If Slavery be, as Earl Russell declared, “one of the most horrible crimes that yet disgrace humanity,” how could England make any concession to Rebels whose single declared object of separate existence was this very crime?

The answer to Mr. Sumner on Prize Courts will be appreciated after reading the report in the London Times, June 16, 1863,[173] of what Earl Russell actually said in the House of Lords.

“With regard to the decisions in Prize Courts, I must say I lament that the Constitution of the United States is such, that, instead of being brought at once before the Court of Admiralty, where generally you have a very eminent judge to preside, perfectly well acquainted with the Law of Nations, such cases go in the first instance before the District Courts, then, I think, before a Circuit Court, and it is only after a considerable delay that they come before the Supreme Court of the United States. I say this, because I believe we should all very much respect a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, and it is to be lamented that there should be a considerable delay before the judgment of that tribunal can be obtained.”

The compliment to the Supreme Court of the United States, which, like the House of Lords and the Privy Council, is not a court of original jurisdiction in prize cases, will hardly excuse the reflection upon the District Courts, which are the Admiralty Courts of the United States,—especially when it is considered that those at Boston and New York, where the prize cases chiefly occurred, were administered at the time by judges who would compare favorably with the contemporary judge of the English Admiralty. Judge Sprague, of Boston, and Judge Betts, of New York, were “very eminent” and “perfectly well acquainted with the Law of Nations,” although only judges of District Courts.

The speech of Earl Russell was noticed by Mr. Adams, in a despatch to Mr. Seward, under date of October 1, 1863:—

“The event of the week has been the speech of Earl Russell at Blairgowrie, evidently drawn forth by the report of Mr. Sumner’s address at New York.”[174]

It was the subject of comment by the press of England and the United States. The sympathetic Morning Star said:—

“Mr. Sumner’s oration has had an unexpected effect. It has stirred the phlegmatic nature of Earl Russell. The Foreign Secretary has replied from his Scottish retreat to the complaints and reproaches of the New England Senator. Absurdly contemptuous in his personal allusions to the distinguished Senator, Lord Russell confesses the force of his accusations by taking the trouble to reply to them.…

“It would also have been well, if our Foreign Secretary had included in his reply some notice of one of the most distinct and gravest of Mr. Sumner’s complaints. The defence of our recognition of the Confederates as belligerents is without novelty. It is a simple repetition of the old statement, that our naval commanders required to be instructed whether they should respect the new flag or treat it as that of a pirate. Lord Russell does not touch the objection raised by Mr. Sumner, that the Confederates had no ocean navy, and could provide one only from neutral ports. Neither does his Lordship explain why the resolution to recognize the Confederates as belligerents was taken in the absence from this country of a Federal minister.

“But, notwithstanding these defects, Lord Russell’s speech at Blairgowrie is an immense advance upon his previous utterances on the American Question. It is evident that he begins to perceive the real issue of the conflict, and rightly estimates the direction of British sentiment.”

The Boston Traveller said:—

“Earl Russell has fallen into several grave errors in the course of his remarks. He has utterly misconceived the whole temper of Mr. Sumner’s speech, when he says that ‘it weighs the difficulties of the English Government in an unequal balance,’ and that it is ‘an epitome of almost all that has been contained by the press of America’ on the subject of the ill-feeling against Great Britain and her neutrality, so generally prevalent among us. The feeling evoked by the belligerent articles of the New York Herald is one of far different character from that produced by Mr. Sumner’s remarks. Lord Russell charges him with injustice to the English people. Had he read the speech to which he professes to reply with more care, there would have been found no ground to sustain such a charge.”

In France the speech of Mr. Sumner was published in an abridged form, under the following title:—

“Les Relations Extérieures des États-Unis. Préface et Traduction abrégée par A. Malespine [of the Opinion Nationale]. Paris, 1863.” 31 pp. 8vo.

The eminent historian, Henri Martin, writing in the Siècle on American affairs, alluded to the speech.

“We will not close these considerations without recommending to the readers of the Siècle the eloquent appeal addressed to public opinion by one of the greatest citizens of the United States, Charles Sumner, Chairman of the Committee of Foreign Relations in the American Senate. The French translation of this discourse on the Foreign Relations of the United States has just appeared. He treats here the question of foreign intervention in fact and in right, demonstrates in a victorious manner, according to our opinion, that the South had not the title to be admitted as a belligerent, and considers it impossible that France and England can recognize a political society founded on Slavery. We think to-day the cause gained. Neither the sons of ’89 nor the country of Wilberforce will have this stain on their history.”

These various testimonies at home and abroad, where criticism is not wanting, show that Mr. Sumner did not speak in vain. Evidently he obtained a hearing for the national cause.