Chapter VII: Appendix (1)

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.…