Chapter VII

MORE WAR REMINISCENCES—BRITISH AND NAPOLEONIC
DESIGNS.

HOW NAPOLEON DEFIED THE MONROE DOCTRINE.—THE BANQUET TO ROMERO.—SPEECHES
BY EMINENT FINANCIERS, JURISTS AND BUSINESS MEN.—THE ELOQUENT
ADDRESS OF ROMERO AGAINST FRENCH INTERVENTION.—NAPOLEON SHOWS HIS
ANIMUS BY DESTROYING THE NEWSPAPERS CONTAINING THE REPORT OF THE
BANQUET.—THE EMPEROR PLOTTING WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ENGLISH
PARLIAMENT TO AID THE CONFEDERATES AND MAKE WAR ON THE UNITED
STATES.

There were other critical periods during the war when Wall Street came to the front, besides the one in which it rendered such timely aid to the Government in its financial embarrassment. One of these was when the Emperor of the French, Napoleon III., showed his cloven foot and exhibited anew the rancorous disposition which ten years previously had crushed the Republican hopes of La Belle France by the murderous _Coup d’Etat_. He made a bold attempt to plant that blood-stained foot on this fair soil, in open defiance of the Monroe doctrine, and to crush the liberties that his immortal uncle, even in the full flush of his great conquests, dared not attack and was forced to respect.

I shall here relate an incident of this period, which, I think, has not obtained the prominence in our national history to which, I believe, it is justly entitled.

Senor Romero, then Mexican Minister at Washington, was invited to a public dinner in New York, in order that proper occasion might be found to discuss the situation with regard to the intentions of Napoleon the Little concerning Mexico, and with a view of preventing foreign intrusion, which was only the entering wedge for future invasion, at a time when our nation was engaged in a family struggle to maintain its own existence, and demonstrate the durability of Republicanism.

The dinner, at which there was a grand manifestation of sympathy in favor of the Mexican cause against French invasion, took place on the evening of March 29, 1864, at Delmonico’s, Fifth Avenue and Fourteenth street. The banquet was held in four of the largest rooms. The large dining hall was illuminated as a promenade for the families of the hosts and guests, and a large concourse of ladies and gentlemen who were invited to see the table and be presented to the distinguished envoy. The rooms were elegantly decorated with flowers, grouped and festooned with artistic skill, and the doorways arrayed with fragrant wreaths and garlands. One room was set apart for the orchestra, and Helmsmuller furnished the music.

Senor Don Juan N. Navarro, Consul-General of the Mexican Republic, Ignacio Mariscal, an eminent jurist of Mexico, and Don Fernando De La Cuesta, Assistant-Secretary of the Legation, were invited guests. Following are the names of the Committee of Invitation:

WILLIAM C. BRYANT,
WILLIAM H. ASPINWALL,
HAMILTON FISH,
JOHN W. HAMERSLEY,
JONATHAN STURGES,
JAMES W. BEEKMAN,
J. J. ASTOR, JR.,
SMITH CLIFT,
W. E. DODGE, JR.,
DAVID HOADLEY,
FREDERICK DE PEYSTER,
W. BUTLER DUNCAN,
WILLIAM CURTIS NOYES,
HENRY CLEWS,
FREDERICK C. GEBHARD,
JAMES T. BRADY,
GEORGE T. STRONG,
HENRY DELAFIELD,
HENRY E. PIERREPONT,
GEORGE OPDYKE,
DAVID DUDLEY FIELD,
GEORGE BANCROFT,
C. A. BRISTED,
ALEXANDER VAN RENSSELAER,
GEORGE FOLSOM,
WASHINGTON HUNT,
CHARLES KING,
WILLARD PARKER,
ADRIAN ISELIN,
ROBERT J. LIVINGSTON,
SAMUEL B. RUGGLES.

Hon. James W. Beekman presided. The stewards were John Jacob Astor, John W. Hamersley and Henry Clews.

When full justice had been done to the large variety of sumptuous dishes, the chairman called the company to order, and explained that the object of the meeting was to do honor to the great cause of religions and political freedom contended for by the Republic of Mexico. The chair gave the first regular toast, “The President of the United States,” and called upon David Dudley Field to respond, who did so in his usual eloquent style, stating that the sentiment of the whole country was united in sympathy with the cause of the Mexicans, and that the Executive Department of the Government was simply the agent and exponent of the popular will. He dwelt at some length on the French invasion of Mexico as one of the greatest crimes of the age, and predicted the brief reign of Maximilian. Mr. Field wound up his discourse with the following grand peroration:

Maximilian may come with the Austrian eagle and the French
tricolor; he may come with a hundred ships; he may march on the
high road from Vera Cruz to the capital, under the escort of
French squadrons; he may be proclaimed by French trumpets in all
the squares of the chief cities; but he will return, at some
earlier or later day, a fugitive from the New World back to the
Old, from which he came; his followers will be scattered and
chased from the land; the titles and dignities which he is about
to lavish on parasites and apostates will be marks of derision;
the flag of the republic will wave from all the peaks of the
Cordilleras, and be answered from every mountain-top, east and
west, to either ocean; and the renewed country, purified by
blood and fire, will resume its institutions, and be free.

The second toast was, “Don Benito Juarez, Constitutional President of the Mexican Republic,” to which Mr. Charles King, President of Columbia College, responded. He spoke of Mexico as the friend and ally of the Union as opposed to European hostility.

His Excellency, Senor Matias Romero, the honored guest of the evening, then made a brilliant speech on the situation, from which I take the following extracts:

“I am very happy to say that the kind of feeling you express for
Mexico is fully reciprocated. In Mexico there are now but the
sentiments of regard and admiration for the United States, and
the desire to pursue such a course as will draw more closely all
those powerful ties by which both nations should be united.

“The Emperor of the French pretends that the object of his
interference in Mexican affairs is to prevent the annexation of
Mexico to the United States; and yet that very thing would, most
likely, be ultimately accomplished if a monarchy were
established in Mexico. Fortunately for us, that scheme is by no
means a feasible one.

“We were willing to grant to the United States every commercial
facility that will not be derogatory of our independence and
sovereignty. This will give to the United States all possible
advantages that could be derived from annexation, without any of
its inconveniences. That once done, our common interests,
political as well as commercial, will give us a common whole
American continental policy which no European nation would dare
disregard.

“The bright future which I plainly see for both nations had made
me forget for a moment the present troubles in which they are
now involved. I consider these troubles of so transitory a
nature as not to interfere materially with the common destiny I
have foreshadowed; but, as they have the interest of actuality,
I beg to be allowed to make a few remarks in regard to them.

“Every careful observer of events could not help noticing, when
the expedition against Mexico was organized in Europe, that it
would, sooner or later, draw the United States into the most
serious complications, and involve them in the difficulty. The
object of that expedition being no less than a direct and armed
interference in the political affairs of an American nation,
with a view to overthrow its republican institutions and
establish on their ruins a monarchy, with a European prince on
the throne—the only question to be determined by the United
States and the other nations concerned, was as to the time when
they would be willing or ready to meet the issue thus boldly and
openly held out by the antagonistic nations of Europe.

“This, in my opinion, is the situation in which the United
States are placed with regard to Mexico. Taking into
consideration the well-known sagacity of American statesmen the
often-proved devotion of the American people to republican
institutions, and the patriotism and zeal of the Administration
that presides over the destinies of the country, I cannot
entertain the slightest doubt that the United States will act in
this emergency as will conduce to the best interests they and
mankind at large have at stake in the Mexican question.

“The United States may find that they are brought squarely to
the issue in the Mexican question sooner than they expected,
should the report, lately reached here, of any understanding
between Maximilian, as so-called Emperor of Mexico, and the
insurgents in this country, prove correct. The archduke, it is
stated, will inaugurate his administration by acknowledging the
independence of the South, and, perhaps, he will go further; and
this, of course, by the advice, consent and support of the
French Government, whose satellite, and nothing else, will the
archduke be in Mexico.

“Among the many events calculated to terminate immediately
French intervention in Mexico, the European complications which
threaten to cause a general war on that continent should be
particularly mentioned. It is certainly wonderful that while
Europe is in so insecure and agitated a condition, menaced by
revolutions everywhere, and wrestling to recover its own
existence and independence, the French Emperor should be
thinking about arranging other people’s affairs, as if his own
did not require his immediate and most particular attention.”

Mr. George Bancroft, the eminent historian, was next called upon to reply to the toast, “The Eminent Statesmen of Mexico,” among whom the chair named Guatimotzin, Hidalgo, Morelos, Ocampo, Lerdo and Degollado. Mr. Bancroft said:

MR. BANCROFT.

GENTLEMEN—Although I am not prepared to deliver an address
worthy of this auditory, I can not refrain from replying and
expressing my sentiments, as I have been called to reply to the
toast which our president has just proposed to the statesmen of
our neighboring sister republic. The struggle which for many
long years the Mexican people have sustained against their
interior tyrants has been an heroic struggle, worthy of a
civilized and cultivated people, and in which the sympathies of
the whole civilized world—of all the friends of political and
religious liberty—ought to have been manifested in a frank and
decided manner in behalf of the Mexican people, directed by the
liberal party. I believe, gentlemen, that the cause of civil
wars, not only in Mexico, but throughout all Spanish America,
has been the clergy alone, who, when they come to acquire power
in the State, always strive to overturn the government and to
subordinate the temporal interests of society to their own. This
attribute seems to belong principally to the Catholic clergy.

“The struggle, then, in which up to this time the patriotic
Mexicans have been engaged, was a holy struggle, and the
sympathy of the whole people of the United States was with
them—a people who, whatever may be their religious creeds,
adopts as a fundamental principle the most complete religious
liberty, and the absolute independence of the Church from the
State.

“But now the sympathy of the United States is increased for the
Mexican people, when, in addition to the facts already
mentioned, we find this people struggling for their independence
and nationality against a European nation, which, taking
advantage of the civil strife in which we were engaged, has
sought to establish before our eyes a form of Government in open
antagonism to our own. We can not do less than receive this
project in the same way as Europe would receive it, were we to
foment revolutions and establish republics on that continent.

“Then it is that those statesmen in the United States who aid us
to emerge from our present difficulties, and to restore our
power and legitimate influence, and those who in Mexico not only
consummate the great work of establishing religious liberty on a
solid basis, but who succeed in driving from their country the
foreign invader, or at least keep the sacred fire of patriotism
and of resistance to the invader burning, while we disembarrass
ourselves of our complications, deserve, in the highest degree,
our success and ardent homage.

“Gentlemen, the Egyptians used to place a burning lamp at the
feet of their royal corpses. On descending the steep vaults in
which the corpses were deposited, the lamp was naturally
extinguished.

“Let Europe place at Maximilian’s feet the weak lamp of
monarchial power. It will not burn in the atmosphere of our
continent.”

Mr. William Cullen Bryant was then called upon, and said, in part:

“We of the United States have constituted ourselves a sort of
police of the New World. Again and again have we warned off the
highwaymen and burglars of the Old World who stand at the head
of its governments, styling themselves conquerors. We have said
to them, that if they attempted to pursue their infamous
profession here they did it at their peril. But now, when the
police is engaged in a deadly conflict with a band of ruffians,
comes this Frenchman, knocks down an unoffending bystander,
takes his watch and purse, strips him of his clothing, and makes
off with the booty. This act of the French monarch is as base,
cowardly and unmanly as it is criminal and cruel. There is no
person, acquainted, even in the slightest degree, with the
political history of the times, who does not know that it would
never have been perpetrated had not the United States been
engaged in an expensive and bloody war within their own borders.

“We thought that we saw the dawn of an era of enlightened
government in the administration of Juarez. That dawn has been
overcast by the clouds of a tempest wafted hither from Europe.
May the darkness which has gathered over it be of short
continuance; may these clouds soon be dispelled by the sunshine
of liberty and peace, and Mexico, assured of her independence,
take the high place which belongs to her in the family of
nations.” (Continued applause.)

Senor Don Ignacio Mariscal responded to “Our Guest and the Bar of Mexico.”

Mr. George Folsom, formerly envoy from the United States to the Netherlands, responded on behalf of the diplomacy, making special reference to Don Jose Lopez Uraga, Mexican Minister to Berlin.

Dr. Willard Parker responded to the health of Dr. Navarro, formerly Chief of the Medical Staff of the Mexican Army.

Mr. George Opdyke responded on behalf of the merchants.

Senor De La Cuesta replied to the Commerce of Mexico.

Mr. Jonathan Sturges spoke for the fine arts of Mexico.

Mr. Washington Hunt spoke, protesting strongly against the French invasion of Mexico.

Mr. Frederick De Peyster, President of the New York Historical Society, responded on behalf of the historians of Mexico. He also made some eloquent remarks on the tyranny of French intervention.

Mr. Henry E. Pierrepont spoke, as the representative of Brooklyn, against the French policy in Mexico.

Mr. Smith Clift responded on behalf of the Bar.

Mr. Charles Astor Bristed replied on behalf of the Literary Men.

Mr. William E. Dodge, Jr., spoke on behalf of the Young Men of America. “The tread of a French invasion,” he said, “is to them a direct insult, and were our own sad war over, I believe there is not a town, or village, or hamlet, where a full company would not spring to arms to aid our sister republic in her glorious struggle. I give, as a sentiment in which I know all will heartily join, the “Monroe Doctrine”-“Americans can never allow the heel of European despotism to place its imprint upon the soil of our Western continent.”

The Chair then said, “Let us now recognize the services of our commissariat, who have so nobly discharged their stewardship. I propose the health of the stewards. I beg Mr. John W. Hamersley to speak in their behalf.” Three cheers were then given for the stewards.

Mr. Hamersley delivered an eloquent address, from which I take the following excerpts:

“It is hardly fair, sir, to call on us while our hearts are
beating with fervid thoughts, and your ears ringing with burning
words. Had this toast been on the programme, one of my
coadjutors would have prepared an address worthy of the
compliment and the occasion. This Committee was not chosen for
their gifts of utterance, but for those humbler tastes, which
only lend a grace to eloquence. Our duties are æsthetic,
industrial and artistic. We have compassed the ends of the
earth, the depths of the sea; we have levied contributions on
the four winds of heaven, to cluster here all that can tempt the
appetite, or fascinate the ear and eye, and we fancied our
mission accomplished.

“However, there is the post-prandial law; the despotism of the
wine cup, to which we all owe allegiance—the only despotism
which the descendants of the Huguenots, or Pilgrim Fathers, will
ever tolerate on this continent. We are here, sir, in menace to
none, but firmly and respectfully, in the majesty of manhood,
and in consciousness of power, to reassert a principle, imbibed
with our mother’s milk, a household word, a dogma of American
faith; but while we cordially grasp our neighbor’s hand, in the
darkest hour of her trial, the grasp has due emphasis and
significance.

“With her, we have kindred traditions; each of us has hewn an
empire from the wilderness; each of us has expelled the
oppressor; and both of us, with tattered banners drenched in the
gore of hero martyrs, are now appealing from treachery to the
God of Battles.

“We have a common future; for who can doubt that our successes
and the death-knell of treason is already rung?—who can doubt
that the triumph of our arms will be the signal for the eagles
of Austerlitz “to change their base,” from the pyramids of
Puebla for their perch on the towers of Notre Dame? And permit
me here, sir, to express a hope, suggested by the _season_ (God
grant it may be a prophecy), that the Easter chimes of Mexico,
of the coming year, with the glad tidings of a Saviour risen,
shall peal from sierra to sierra, from ocean to ocean, with the
glad tidings of a nation risen, a nation born again. (Cheers.)

“Sir [to the Chair], it is fitting, while the accents of sweet
music recall tender and happy memories (man, imaged by that
armed cactus; woman, by that graceful palm), it is holy to
consecrate the hour to her who was “last at the cross and first
at the sepulchre.” I propose, sir, a toast, to which your
heart’s pulse will echo:

‘The daughters of Mexico—Fair as her sons are brave.’”

(Enthusiastic and prolonged applause. Music—_Viva Republica._)

THE CHAIR.

“We must not permit the modesty of our banker and steward, Mr.
Clews, to outweigh our desire to hear from the Bourse.”

MR. HENRY CLEWS.

MR. PRESIDENT AND GENTLEMEN—Enough has already been said, in the
speeches made this evening, to indicate most conclusively the
depth of sympathy which pervades this community in behalf of the
cause of Mexico, and I rise to express my cordial concurrence
with the sentiments which have been avowed.

The unanimous and determined voices of this company clearly show
that public opinion in this country will not submit to the
encroachments of foreign powers upon any portion of the
territory of the continent.

The principles of free republican government are so strongly
implanted in the hearts of the people both of Mexico and the
United States, that they will never consent to surrender them.

“Human freedom and the rights of man make common cause between
Mexico and all other American States.

“I do not utter these words in prejudice against any government.
In my judgment, European nations will best promote the welfare
of their own people by carefully abstaining from all
interference with the declared will of those who dwell on this
continent.

“The doctrine has been solemnly asserted, and will be maintained
inviolate against all alliances which seek to impede the
progress of liberal institutions, or to impair the strength of
governments founded on the rights and intelligence of the
people.

“This is the doctrine of the United States, and, under the
shield of its power and influence, the safety, prosperity and
independence of Mexico will be maintained and made perpetual.”
(Cheers.)

The meeting then separated, marching out to the inspiring strains of the Marseillaise.

A few days after this meeting the House of Representatives unanimously resolved that the United States would never consent to the establishment of a monarchy which would arise under the auspices of Europe, upon the ruins of a republic on the American continent.

The speeches at the Romero banquet, followed by this resolution, were the premonitory sounds of the death knell of Maximilian’s empire, even before he took formal possession of his evanescent throne.

To show the animus of the Emperor regarding this meeting, and how closely he was watching the struggle, I may state that when the New York _Herald_, which had a full account of the meeting, arrived in Paris it was promptly seized by Napoleon’s censors and shared the fate of _La Lantern_ and some of Victor Hugo’s most vigorous productions. It was committed to the flames on account of the speeches made by some of our representative men. It will be seen by reference to this incident that our representatives in Wall Street were among the first to perceive this threatened danger to the nation, and that they manifested their business tact and capacity in promptly meeting it. They acted literally on the maxim of Sir Boyle Roche, that “the best way to shun danger is to meet it half way.”

Wall Street men were the first to make the move that checkmated the tyrant who was ambitious to prove before the eyes of the world that Republicanism was a failure.

A volume might be written by the student of universal history, and probably will be by some future Herodotus, Macaulay, or Prescott, on the far-reaching influences of this original move on the part of the Wall Street men. There is a large field for speculative theorizing, containing much important truth in the way the Republican spirit was reflected in the political thought of Mexico, as the result of the feeling manifested at this public dinner in New York. It was undoubtedly the active precursor of the events that sealed the fate of that unfortunate cat’s paw, Maximilian. It gave birth to the idea that reverberated across the Atlantic, created distrust in Napoleon’s schemes of conquest as visionary with his own people, and alarmed their Teutonic foes, who urged forward those mighty preparations that culminated in the terrible overthrow at Sedan.

To the mere reader of our local newspapers the connection between cause and effect of these great events may seem far-fetched, but it is all plain sailing to the student of general history.

In this connection it would be unjust to the genius of history to omit the part which England played on the same chessboard with her former political refugee, constable and Imperial protégé. Although Mr. Disraeli has done considerable justice to the case in Endymion, he has not dealt with it from this side of the Atlantic. And I am now going to touch on some points of hitherto unwritten history.

There was a secret alliance formed between Napoleon and the British Cabinet—an international conspiracy on a large scale—to demolish the liberties of this country, pounce upon the wreck and then share the spoils between these two powerful pirates. How this was planned and subsequently averted would form, if fully written up, one of the most interesting chapters in the voluminous library of statecraft, and would take most of the political sensation out of the best efforts of Macchiavelli, Talleyrand and Prince Metternich. I can only glance at the leading features of the diabolical scheme, and show how Wall Street men were again promptly in the breach at the proper moment.

The New York riots of 1863 were fomented by British, French and Southern influence combined, as a part of the villainous plot. The design was to give our troops enough to do in quelling local riots, so that they should have no opportunity of going to the front. Southern passion was predominant, and could not discern at the time that their would-be allies were their bitterest enemies. It was hoped that the “draft riots” would be so widespread as to afford Southern chivalry a chance to march unimpeded to Washington and capture the Capitol, when the allied foes of liberty, by virtue of their _entente cordiale_, should seize upon their prey.

Everything was in readiness for raising the blockade and pouring in armaments from Europe to complete the conquest. England had acted with more caution than Napoleon, and was slow to move, though he was constantly urging her forward. It is due to the villainy of his great conception to state, that, had he been able to move his more sluggish ally in crime with greater celerity, the result might have been overwhelmingly disastrous to this country.

------------------------------------------------------------------------