From the English Blue-book.
MESSRS. YANCEY, ROST AND MANN TO EARL RUSSELL – (RECEIVED NOV. 30.)
London, Nov. 30, 1861
The undersigned have been instructed by the President of the Confederate States to communicate to Her Britannic Majesty’s Government copies of the list of vessels which have arrived and departed from the various ports of the confederate states since the proclamation of a blockade of those ports, up to the 20th of August last, by which it will be seen that up to that time more than 400 vessels had arrived and departed unmolested.
Since the date of these Reports, other and most important violations of the blockade are known to have occurred. The undersigned will instance a few of the most prominent and well-known:
The British steamer Bermuda went into the port of Savannah from Falmouth, England, on the 28th of September, and left that port for Havre on the 1st instant.
The Confederate States steamer Theodora left Charleston on or about the 1st of October, put to sea, and returned on the same day.
The same steamer Left Charleston on the 11th of October for Havana, proceeded to that port, took in cargo, and entered the port of Savannah about the 20th of the same month.
The Confederate ship Helen left the port of Charleston on the 2d of November, and arrived at Liverpool on the 25th inst.
Three ships, with cargoes, arrived from Havana in the Confederate port of Savannah, about the 24th of October.
On the 26th of October, the Confederate States steamer Nashville, left the port of Charleston, and arrived at Southampton on the 21st inst.
It was declared by the five Great European Powers, and the Conference of Paris, that “blockades, to be binding, must be effective – this is, maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the enemy’s coast;” a principle long before sanctioned by the leading publicists, and now acknowledged by all civilized nations. When these resolutions were communicated to the Government of the United States, though that relating to privateers was rejected, (without a modification,) the principle there applied to blockades was unequivocally affirmed. On the 13th of August last, the Government of the Confederate States acknowledged the same principle, in its full extent by a Declaration of its Congress.
The undersigned confidently submit that the annexed list of vessels that have arrived at and cleared from the ports of the confederate States since the blockade was proclaimed by the Government of the United States, is conclusive evidence that this blockade has not been effective, and is therefore not binding.
May not the government of the Confederate States, then, fairly suggest that the five great powers owe it to their own consistency, to the rule of conduct so formally laid down for their guidance, and to the commercial world (so deeply interested), to make good their declaration, so solemnly and publicly made? Prepositions of such gravity, and emanating from sources so high, may fairly be considered as affecting the general business relations of human society, and as controlling, in a great degree, the calculations and arrangements of nations, so far as they are concerned in the rules thus laid down. Men have a right to presume that a law thus proclaimed will be universally maintained by those who have the power to do so, and who have taken it upon themselves to watch over its execution; nor will any suppose that particular States or cases would be exempted from the operation under the influence of partiality or favor. If, therefore, we can prove the blockade to have been ineffectual, we perhaps have a right to expect that the nations assenting to this Declaration of the Conference at Paris will not consider it to be binding. We are fortified in this expectation, not only by their own declarations, but by the nature of the interests affected by the blockade. So far, at least, it has been proved that the only certain and sufficient source of cotton supply has been found in the Confederate States. It is probably that there are more people without than within the Confederate States who derive their means of living from the various uses which are made of this important staple. A war, therefore, which shuts up this great source of supply from the general uses of mankind is directed as much against those who transport and manufacture cotton as against those who produce the raw material. Innocent parties who are thus affected my well insist that a right whose exercise operates so unfavorably on them shall only be used within the strictest limits of public law. Would it not be a movement more in consonance with the spirit of the age to insist that, among the many efficient means of waging war, this one should be excepted in deference to the general interests of mankind, so many of whom depend for their means of living upon a ready and easy access to the greatest and cheapest cotton market of the world? If for the general benefit of commerce, some of its great routes have been neutralized, so as to be unaffected by the chances of war, might not another interest of a greater and more world wide importance, claim at least so much consideration as to demand the benefit of every presumption in favor of its protection against all the chances of war save those which arise under the strictest rules of public war?
The undersigned submit to Her Majesty’s Government that a real neutrality calls for a rigid observance of international and municipal law in their application to both belligerents, and that a relaxation of the principles of public law in favor of one of the parties violating them, can be nothing more nor less than an injury done to that extent to the other side. Any considerations of sympathy for the embarrassed condition of the United States, if allowed to relax the application of those laws, must be justly considered as so much aid and comfort given to tem at the expense of the Confederate States, and the undersigned can not for a moment believe that such a policy can influence Her Majesty’s Government.
The undersigned have forborne to press these great questions upon the attention of Her Majesty’s Government with that assiduity which, perhaps, the interests of the Confederate States would have justified, knowing the great interests of Her Majesty’s Government in the preservation of friendly relations with both the belligerent Powers. They cannot but think that the facts connected with this nominal blockade, and the great interests of the neutral commerce of the world, imperatively demand that Her Majesty’s Government should take decisive action in declaring the blockade ineffective.
These views are affirmed as much in the general interests of mankind is in that of the Confederate States, who do not ask for assistance to enable them to maintain their independence against any Power which has yet assailed them.
The undersigned have been further instructed by their Government to communicate to that of Her Britannic Majesty a copy of resolutions adopted by the Congress of the Confederate States, Aug. 13, 1861. It is annexed as Inclosure [sic] No. 2.
The Undersigned, &c.
(Signed)
W. L. YANCEY,
P. H. ROST,
A. DUDLEY MANN.
EARL RUSSELL’S REPLY – COLD COMFORT.
Foreign Office, Dec. 7.
Lord RUSSELL presents his compliments to Mr. YANCEY, Mr. ROST and Mr. MANN He has had the honor to receive their letters and inclosures [sic] of the 27th and 30th of November; but in the present state of affairs he must decline to enter ino any official communication with them.
RUSSELL.
– Published in The New York Times, New York, New York, Thursday February 27, 1862
MESSRS. YANCEY, ROST AND MANN TO EARL RUSSELL – (RECEIVED NOV. 30.)
London, Nov. 30, 1861
The undersigned have been instructed by the President of the Confederate States to communicate to Her Britannic Majesty’s Government copies of the list of vessels which have arrived and departed from the various ports of the confederate states since the proclamation of a blockade of those ports, up to the 20th of August last, by which it will be seen that up to that time more than 400 vessels had arrived and departed unmolested.
Since the date of these Reports, other and most important violations of the blockade are known to have occurred. The undersigned will instance a few of the most prominent and well-known:
The British steamer Bermuda went into the port of Savannah from Falmouth, England, on the 28th of September, and left that port for Havre on the 1st instant.
The Confederate States steamer Theodora left Charleston on or about the 1st of October, put to sea, and returned on the same day.
The same steamer Left Charleston on the 11th of October for Havana, proceeded to that port, took in cargo, and entered the port of Savannah about the 20th of the same month.
The Confederate ship Helen left the port of Charleston on the 2d of November, and arrived at Liverpool on the 25th inst.
Three ships, with cargoes, arrived from Havana in the Confederate port of Savannah, about the 24th of October.
On the 26th of October, the Confederate States steamer Nashville, left the port of Charleston, and arrived at Southampton on the 21st inst.
It was declared by the five Great European Powers, and the Conference of Paris, that “blockades, to be binding, must be effective – this is, maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the enemy’s coast;” a principle long before sanctioned by the leading publicists, and now acknowledged by all civilized nations. When these resolutions were communicated to the Government of the United States, though that relating to privateers was rejected, (without a modification,) the principle there applied to blockades was unequivocally affirmed. On the 13th of August last, the Government of the Confederate States acknowledged the same principle, in its full extent by a Declaration of its Congress.
The undersigned confidently submit that the annexed list of vessels that have arrived at and cleared from the ports of the confederate States since the blockade was proclaimed by the Government of the United States, is conclusive evidence that this blockade has not been effective, and is therefore not binding.
May not the government of the Confederate States, then, fairly suggest that the five great powers owe it to their own consistency, to the rule of conduct so formally laid down for their guidance, and to the commercial world (so deeply interested), to make good their declaration, so solemnly and publicly made? Prepositions of such gravity, and emanating from sources so high, may fairly be considered as affecting the general business relations of human society, and as controlling, in a great degree, the calculations and arrangements of nations, so far as they are concerned in the rules thus laid down. Men have a right to presume that a law thus proclaimed will be universally maintained by those who have the power to do so, and who have taken it upon themselves to watch over its execution; nor will any suppose that particular States or cases would be exempted from the operation under the influence of partiality or favor. If, therefore, we can prove the blockade to have been ineffectual, we perhaps have a right to expect that the nations assenting to this Declaration of the Conference at Paris will not consider it to be binding. We are fortified in this expectation, not only by their own declarations, but by the nature of the interests affected by the blockade. So far, at least, it has been proved that the only certain and sufficient source of cotton supply has been found in the Confederate States. It is probably that there are more people without than within the Confederate States who derive their means of living from the various uses which are made of this important staple. A war, therefore, which shuts up this great source of supply from the general uses of mankind is directed as much against those who transport and manufacture cotton as against those who produce the raw material. Innocent parties who are thus affected my well insist that a right whose exercise operates so unfavorably on them shall only be used within the strictest limits of public law. Would it not be a movement more in consonance with the spirit of the age to insist that, among the many efficient means of waging war, this one should be excepted in deference to the general interests of mankind, so many of whom depend for their means of living upon a ready and easy access to the greatest and cheapest cotton market of the world? If for the general benefit of commerce, some of its great routes have been neutralized, so as to be unaffected by the chances of war, might not another interest of a greater and more world wide importance, claim at least so much consideration as to demand the benefit of every presumption in favor of its protection against all the chances of war save those which arise under the strictest rules of public war?
The undersigned submit to Her Majesty’s Government that a real neutrality calls for a rigid observance of international and municipal law in their application to both belligerents, and that a relaxation of the principles of public law in favor of one of the parties violating them, can be nothing more nor less than an injury done to that extent to the other side. Any considerations of sympathy for the embarrassed condition of the United States, if allowed to relax the application of those laws, must be justly considered as so much aid and comfort given to tem at the expense of the Confederate States, and the undersigned can not for a moment believe that such a policy can influence Her Majesty’s Government.
The undersigned have forborne to press these great questions upon the attention of Her Majesty’s Government with that assiduity which, perhaps, the interests of the Confederate States would have justified, knowing the great interests of Her Majesty’s Government in the preservation of friendly relations with both the belligerent Powers. They cannot but think that the facts connected with this nominal blockade, and the great interests of the neutral commerce of the world, imperatively demand that Her Majesty’s Government should take decisive action in declaring the blockade ineffective.
These views are affirmed as much in the general interests of mankind is in that of the Confederate States, who do not ask for assistance to enable them to maintain their independence against any Power which has yet assailed them.
The undersigned have been further instructed by their Government to communicate to that of Her Britannic Majesty a copy of resolutions adopted by the Congress of the Confederate States, Aug. 13, 1861. It is annexed as Inclosure [sic] No. 2.
The Undersigned, &c.
(Signed)
W. L. YANCEY,
P. H. ROST,
A. DUDLEY MANN.
EARL RUSSELL’S REPLY – COLD COMFORT.
Foreign Office, Dec. 7.
Lord RUSSELL presents his compliments to Mr. YANCEY, Mr. ROST and Mr. MANN He has had the honor to receive their letters and inclosures [sic] of the 27th and 30th of November; but in the present state of affairs he must decline to enter ino any official communication with them.
RUSSELL.
– Published in The New York Times, New York, New York, Thursday February 27, 1862
No comments:
Post a Comment