Diary of Private Daniel L. Ambrose: Wednesday, May 11, 1864

To-day parties are sent out to patrol along the Elk, and guard the crossings. This evening we receive a dispatch informing us that Rowett has moved from Pulaski on the road leading towards Lexington, Alabama.

SOURCE: Daniel Leib Ambrose, History of the Seventh Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry, p. 237

The Rebel Commissioners’ Appeal to England to Break the Blockade

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

A Missouri Senator For The President’s Emancipation Policy

Senator Henderson, Of Missouri, made an excellent speech on Thursday last in support of the President’s emancipation resolution. After deprecating the disposition of some of the anti-slavery Senators to judge the border State men uncharitably, and expressing his belief that the various emancipation schemes introduced into Congress – especially Senator Sumner’s felo de se resolutions – were calculated to exasperate the Southern people and to prolong the struggle, he never the less sustained the President’s plan without qualification. He denied that it contained a threat of violent emancipation if the Border States refused to sell their slaves, such as radicals of both extremes professed to find in it, and [said:]

“This terrible revolution was brought about by Mr. Yancey and his confederates, by inflaming the Southern mind against the dangers of abolition, which they knew to be false. The drove the South to madness, to self-destruction; and in the letter of Messers. Yancey, Rost and Mann to Lord John Russell, they have erected a monument of infamy to these conspirators. They say, what all must now admit, that it was from no fear that slaves would be liberated that secession took place. The very party in power has proposed to guaranty slavery forever in the States of the South would but remain in the Union. Mr. Lincoln’s message proposes no freedom to the slave, but announces subjection of his owner to the will of the Union – in other words, to the will of the North. Even after the battle of Bull Run both branches of Congress at Washington passed resolutions that the war is only waged in order to enforce that (pro-slavery) constitution, and uphold the laws, (many of them pro-slavery,) and out of the hundred and seventy-two votes in the lower house, they received all but two, in the Senate all but one. As the army commenced its march, the commanding general issued an order that no slaves should be received into or allowed to follow the camp. Now, sir, what has been the result of this unnecessary strife upon my State. – In 1860 our slave population was 114,965, and although we stood as a peninsula in the great ocean of freesoil around us, I hazard the assertion to-day that no property was more secure in the State than slave property. It was so regarded by everybody. Our white population at the same period was upward of one million. – How is it now? I doubt whether there are fifty thousand slaves in the State. The secessionists charged that the brigade commanded by the Senator from Kansas, sitting near me, seized their slaves, and took them out of the State, and in order to retaliate, they as I learn, have taken hundreds of Union men in the state, to be delivered over to their injured friends. – In addition to this, many of the largest slave holders of the state, fearing the result of the war in the earlier stages of the rebellion hurried off their slaves to the South. Others again, waiting until they were surrounded by hostile armies, abandoned negroes and everything else for the protection of themselves, their wives and children.

“The true value of real and personal property in Missouri was in 1860, $501,214,398. Aside from the depreciation of value which no man can now estimate, and beyond the loss of slaves to which I have referred, I think it is safe to say that ten percentum of this vast amount of property has been destroyed and forever lost to the owners in consequence of this war – an amount equal to the aggregate value of all slaves in the state at the commencement of hostilities. If I were to add to this the loss occasioned to the people of the State by the utter prostration of its agricultural, commercial and manufacturing interests for the last twelve months, I might add fifty millions more to the sum already named. Looking, then, to my own State, and I speak for it alone, I am not disposed to take issue with the President in regard to the future results of the war. I regard his expression as a prophecy, and not as a threat – a prophecy that I feel will be realized if this war continues. That it shall continue until the Union be restored, I have already expressed my wish in the amendment offered. Whether you adopt it or not, the great West will never be content until every mile of the Mississippi river from Anthony’s Falls to the Gulf of Mexico shall be under the jurisdiction of our government. Let the question be settled now. But the President negatives, positively negatives the construction given in the following language: ‘Such a proposition on the part of the general government sets up no claim or right by the Federal authority to interfere with slavery within State limits, referring, as it does, the absolute control of the subject in each case to the State and its people immediately interested. It is proposed as a matter of perfectly free choice with them.’

“In this view of the matter, sir, I am perfectly willing that the proposition go before the people of my State, without at present expressing an opinion as to what course they should pursue. It is a new pledge of faith by the representatives of the people that this vexed question shall be left with the people of each state. It comes not in the spirit of arrogance demanding conformity with the views of theirs, but with humility, acknowledging if slavery be an evil, it is a sin for which we are all responsible, and for the removal of which we are willing to come with practical benevolence. It means more than all this. It intimates to the States that the nation would prefer gradual to immediate emancipation, and that the measures no pending in congress looking to such results should be suppressed by one of conciliation and good will. If this spirit had been more largely cultivated in days gone by, we would not this day be forced to witness a ruined South and a deeply depressed North. Why, sir, ninety days of this war would pay for every slave at full value, in the States of Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware and the District of Columbia. Nine months of the expenditures of this strife would have purchased all the slaves in the States named, together with those in Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi and Louisiana, thus preserving the peace the whole of the Mississippi to the Gulf. Less than two years of these expenditures would have paid for every slave that treads the soil of the nation. If northern men had treasured these things and learned that kind words can accomplish more than wrath, and if southern men had resolved to look upon slavery as upon other questions of moral and political economy, and both had determined to examine this as all other subjects, in calmness, and deliberation, we would have been spared the evils that now oppress us.

– Published in the Burlington Weekly Hawk-Eye, Burlington, Iowa, Saturday, April 12, 1862