John Bright to John M. Forbes, July 31, 1863

Rochdale, July 31,1863.

My Dear Me. Forbes, — I am glad to hear of your safe arrival, and I rejoice that on your arrival so much good news should await you. I have a note from Mr. Aspinwall this morning of a very satisfactory character; and I only now begin to fear that your cause may go on too fast, for I am not sure that the North is yet resolute and unanimous enough to be able to deal wisely with the great slavery question. To me it seems needful to declare the Proclamation an unalterable decree, and to restore no State to its ancient position in the nation until its constitution and laws are made to harmonize with the spirit of it. Till this is done, you will be legally entitled to hold and govern every slaveholding State by that military power which has restored it to the control of the central government.

The “recognition” motion in our House of Commons was a ludicrous failure, as you will have seen. I had the opportunity of preaching some sound doctrine to some unwilling ears. Now the press and the friends of “Secesh” are in great confusion, and their sayings and doings are matter of amusement to me and to many others.

. . . And now for your kind words to me, and your hope that I may come to the States. Many thanks for them and for your invitation. I fear I am getting too far on in life to cross the ocean, unless I saw some prospect of being useful, and had some duty clearly before me. It is a subject of constant regret that I have not paid a visit to the States years ago. Mr. Walker and many others alarm me by telling me I should have a reception that would astonish me.

What they promise me would be a great affliction, for I am not ambitious of demonstrations on my behalf. We will hope affairs in the States will be more settled, and passions in some degree calmed down, before I come, if I ever come; and then I might spend three months pleasantly, and perhaps usefully, in seeing your country and its people.

I have had great pleasure in making your acquaintance in London, and only regret that, having no house in town, I was not able to offer you the hospitality I wished to have offered to you and to others of your countrymen.

With all good wishes for you and for your country and government,

I am with much respect, yours sincerely,

John Bright.

SOURCE: Sarah Forbes Hughes, Letters and Recollections of John Murray Forbes, Volume 2, p. 52-4

John Bright to John L. Motley, March 9, 1863

Rochdale,

March 9, 1863.

My Dear Mr. Motley: I should have written to you sooner, but I have been a week away from town and from home in consequence of the death of my father-in-law at Newcastle-on-Tyne, and for a week past I have been unable to sit down to write, owing to a violent cold, with cough and feverishness, which has made me incapable of any business or exertion.

Your letter gave me much pleasure, and I know not that there is anything in it on your great question that I do not agree with. I am glad to find that you have observed the change of feeling which has taken place in this country, and I hope it has not been without effect in the United States.

Coming down from the War of Independence and from the War of 1812, there has always been in this country a certain jealousy of yours. It has been felt by the ruling class that your escape from George III, and our aristocratic government has been followed by a success and a progress of which England could offer no example. The argument could not be avoided, If Englishmen west of the Atlantic can prosper without Crown, without Lords, without Church, without a great territorial class with feudal privileges, and without all this or these can become great and happy, how long will Englishmen in England continue to think these things necessary for them? Any argument in favor of freedom here, drawn from your example, was hateful to the ruling class; and therefore it is not to be wondered at that a great disaster happening to your country and to its Constitution should not be regarded as a great calamity by certain influential classes here. Again, the rich, made rich by commerce, are generally very corrupt: the fluctuations of politics suddenly influence their fortunes, and they are more likely to take the wrong side than the right one. Thus, in London, Liverpool, and Manchester, on the Stock Exchange and the commercial exchanges, are found many friends of the South, from the stupid idea that, if the North would not resist, peace would of necessity be restored.

But, apart from these classes, the mind of the nation is sound, and universally among the working-classes there is not only a strong hatred of slavery, but also a strong affection for the Union and for the Republic. They know well how literally it has been the home of millions of their class, and their feelings are entirely in its favor. The meetings lately held have not generally been attended by speakers most likely to draw great audiences, and yet no building has been large enough to contain those who have assembled. The effect of these meetings is apparent in some of our newspapers, and on the tone of Parliament. In the House of Commons there is not a whisper about recognition or mediation in any form, and so far I see no sign of any attempt to get up a discussion on the part of any friends of the South. I am not certain just now that the most cunning and earnest friends of the South are not of opinion that it is prudent to be quiet on another ground besides that of a public disinclination to their cause: they think the South has more to hope now from dissensions at the North than from European sympathy; and they believe that nothing would so rapidly heal dissensions at the North as any prospect of recognition or interference from France or England. I gather this from what I heard a short time ago from a leading, perhaps the leading, secessionist in the House of Commons.

So far as England is concerned, every idea of interference in any way seems to be quite abandoned. A real neutrality is the universally admitted creed and duty of this country, and I am convinced that there is a wide-spread dissatisfaction with the tardy action of the government by which the Alabama was allowed to get out to sea.

Two days before Parliament met I made a speech to a meeting mainly of working-men in this town. The object of the meeting was to vote thanks to the New York merchants and others for their contributions to our distressed operatives. I spoke to show them how hostile the pretensions of the South not only to negro freedom, but to all freedom, and, especially, to explain to them the new theory that all difficulties between capital and labor would be got rid of by making all labor into capital, that is, by putting my workmen into the position of absolute ownership now occupied by my horses! The people here understand all this. Cheap newspapers have done much for them of late, and I have no fear of their going wrong.

But, seeing no danger here, what can be said for your own people? The democratic leaders in some of the States seem depraved and corrupt to a high degree. It seems incredible that now, after two years of war, there should be anybody in the North in favor of slavery, and ready rather to peril and to ruin the Union than to wound and destroy the great cause of all the evil; yet so it is, and doubtless the government is weakened by this exhibition of folly and treason. Military successes will cure all this — but can they be secured? Time has allowed the South to consolidate its military power and to meet your armies with apparently almost equal forces. To me it seems that too much has been attempted, and that, therefore, much has failed. At this moment much depends on Vicksburg; if the river be cleared out, then the conspiracy will be cut into two, and the reputation of the administration will be raised. If, again, Charleston be captured, the effect in Europe will be considerable, and it will cause much disheartenment through the South. But if neither can be done, I think the North will be sick of its government, if not of the war, and it will be difficult to raise new forces and to continue the war. Another year must, I think, break down the South, but something must be done and shown to make it possible for Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Seward to conduct this contest through another campaign.

I cannot believe in the notions of the New York “Times” as to French intervention. The Mexican mess is surely enough for the appetite of Louis Napoleon. Perhaps the story is got up to give more unity to the Northern mind. I can trace it no further than this. Your cause is in your own hands. I hope Heaven may give you strength and virtue to win it. All mankind look on, for all mankind have a deep interest in the conflict. Thank you for all your kind words to myself. I shall always be glad to have a letter from you.

Ever yours sincerely,

John Bright.

SOURCE: George William Curtis, editor, The Correspondence of John Lothrop Motley in Two Volumes, Library Edition, Volume 2, p. 318-22

Senator Charles Sumner to John Bright, February 15, 1865

[February 15, 1865.]

I am glad of your assurance, in harmony with Mr. Cobden's, that intervention is played out. I am glad also of your speech. It amuses me to read the criticisms, which I can appreciate at their value, as I have been exposed to the same. For years it was said I was governed by hatred for the slave-masters, and did not care at all for the slaves. Oh, no! not at all.

You will read the report of the conferences.¹ It appears that the President was drawn into them by the assurances of General Grant, who was led to expect something.² Perhaps the country sees now more clearly than ever that the war must be pushed to the entire overthrow of the rebel armies. The interview was pleasant. Seward sent the commissioners on their arrival three bottles of choice whiskey, which it was reported they drank thirstily. As they were leaving, he gave them a couple of bottles of champagne for their dinner. Hunter, who is a very experienced politician, and had been all his life down to the rebellion, in Washington, said, after the discussions were closed, “Governor, how is the Capitol? Is it finished?^” This gave Seward an opportunity of picturing the present admired state of the works, with the dome completed, and the whole constituting one of the most magnificent edifices of the world. Campbell, formerly of the Supreme Court of the United States, and reputed the ablest lawyer in the slave States, began the conference by suggesting peace on the basis of a Zollverein, and continued free-trade between the two sections, which he thought might pave the way to something hereafter; but he could not promise anything. This was also the theory of the French minister here, M. Mercier, now at Madrid, who insisted that the war must end in that way. It was remarked that the men had nothing of the haughty and defiant way which they had in Washington formerly. Mr. Blair, who visited Richmond, still insists that peace is near. He says that the war cannot go on another month on their side unless they have help from Louis Napoleon. But here the question of a monarchical government may arise. Jefferson Davis, whom he describes as so emaciated and altered as not to be recognized, sets his face against it. He said to Mr. Blair that “there was a Brutus who would brook the eternal devil as easily as a king in Rome;” and he was that Brutus in Richmond.

Meanwhile the war goes on with converging forces. Mr. Stanton was with me yesterday, and gave me fully his expectations. He thinks that peace can be had only when Lee's army is beaten, captured, or dispersed , and there I agree with him. To that end all our military energies are now directed. Lee’s army is sixty-five thousand men. Against him is Grant at Petersburg, a corps now demonstrating at Wilmington, and Sherman marching from Georgia. The latter will not turn aside for Augusta or Charleston, or any fortified place, but will traverse the Carolinas until he is able to co-operate with Grant. You will see from this statement something of the nature of the campaign. Mr. Stanton thinks it ought to be finished before May. I have for a long time been sanguine that after Lee’s army is out of the way the whole rebellion will disappear. While that is in a fighting condition there is still a hope for the rebels, and the Unionist of the South are afraid to show themselves.

I am sorry that so great and good a man as Goldwin Smith, who has done so much for us, should fall into what Mr. Canning would call “cantanker.” He rushed too swiftly to his conclusion;³ but I hope that we shall not lose his powerful support for the good cause. I have felt it my duty to say to the British charge here that nothing could be done to provide for British claims on our government arising out of the war, which are very numerous, until Lord Russell took a different course with regard to ours. He tosses ours aside haughtily. I am sorry, for my system is peace and good-will, which I shall try in my sphere to cultivate, but there must be reciprocity.

P. S. Did I mention, as showing the good nature of the peace conferences, that after the serious discussions were over, including allusions on the part of the rebels to what was gently called “the continental question.” Mr. Stephens asked the President to send back a nephew of his, a young lieutenant, who was a prisoner in the North! The President said at once, “Stephens, I’ll do it, if you will send back one of our young lieutenants.” It was agreed; and Mr. Stephens handed the President on a slip of paper the name of his nephew, and the President handed Mr. Stephens the name of an officer of corresponding rank. This was the only stipulation on that occasion; and the President tells me it has been carried out on each side. Mr. Schleiden, the new minister of the Hanse Towns to London, has been long in Washington, and knows us well. Few foreigners have ever studied us more. I commend him to you and Mr. Cobden.

_______________

¹ At Hampton Roads, February 3, between Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Seward on the one side, and Stephens, Hunter, and Campbell on the other.

² Nicolay and Hay's “Life of Lincoln,” vol. x. p. 127.

³ Reply of Goldwin Smith in Boston “ Advertiser," January 28, to his critics, — Theophilus Parsons and George Bemis.

SOURCE: Edward Lillie Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Volume 4, p. 205-6

John M. Forbes to Governor John A. Andrew, May 20, 1863

London, May 20, 1863.

My Dear Governor, — I have your long and interesting letter of Tuesday, May 5, with hopeful views of Hooker's battle. God grant they may have been realized, though his situation seemed critical at last accounts. I have just had Mr. Bright to breakfast, and have since seen Cobden. I tell them both that either a great success or a great disaster will stir up our people, and if they hear to-morrow that Hooker is driven back, it will only mean that it will bring out our people. Like the pine-tree, it may be said of the North: —

“The firmer it roots him,

The harder it blows.”

I only wish I were at home to do my share there, if the news is black; but my work here is but half done, and I can only give you my good wishes and my children.

How you would like John Bright! He is a man after your own pattern, — genial, warm-hearted, frank. I am busy just now trying to see the Quakers, and to bring them up to the mark of doing something for peace, by petitioning for the suppression of ironclads and other Confederate pirates. Cobden is confident the ironclads will not be allowed to go out, and they have certainly checked up the work upon them. I think the case looks better, but still the calm seems to me too uncertain to trust to. I would avail of it to prepare for the possible storm. I note what you say of guns. I hope you observe in the prices sent you the very extravagant ones are for all steel, which are deemed unnecessary. The Russians take iron spindles and steel jackets. I fear our army and navy are a little too much governed by those most excellent riders of their hobbies, — Rodman and Dahlgren, for whom I have the greatest possible respect; but you must not forget that to pierce an ironclad you need velocity of shot, which cannot be had with your cast-iron guns; they will not stand the powder. Sumter drove off our ironclads with Blakely guns and round steel shot. Benzon and I, as I wrote you before, have gone in for two ten-and-three-quarter, and one nine-inch gun, cast-iron spindle, steel jacket, which will cost £1000, £1000, and £750, more or less. If you decide not to have them, I hope you will say so, and we shall try to resell them here with as little loss as possible. If only as patterns, it seems to me you ought to have them.

Yours truly,

J. M. Forbes.

SOURCE: Sarah Forbes Hughes, Letters and Recollections of John Murray Forbes, Volume 2, p. 15-6

John L. Motley to Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr., November 2, 1862

Vienna, November 2, 1862.

My Dear Holmes: More and more does it become difficult for me to write to you. I am greedier than ever for your letters, but the necessary vapidity of anything I can send to you in return becomes more apparent to me every day. It seems to me that by the time one of my notes makes its way to you in Boston it must have faded into a blank bit of paper. Where there is absolutely nothing in one's surroundings that can interest a friend, the most eloquent thing would seem to be to hold one's tongue. At least, however, I can thank you most warmly for your last letter. You know full well how interested I am in everything you can write, whether of speculation or of narration. Especially am I anxious to hear all that you have to say of Wendell's career. Of course his name among the wounded in the battle of Antietam instantly caught our eyes, and though we felt alarmed and uncomfortable, yet fortunately it was stated in the first intelligence we received that the wound, although in the neck, was not a dangerous one. I could not write to you, however, until I felt assured that he was doing well. I suppose Wendell has gone back to his regiment before this, and God knows whether there has not already been another general engagement in the neighborhood of the Potomac. What a long life of adventure and experience that boy has had in the fifteen months which have elapsed since I saw him, with his Pylades, seated at the Autocrat's breakfast-table in Charles Street!

Mary told me of his meeting with Hallowell, wounded, being brought from the field at the same time with himself, and of both being put together in the same house. We are fortunate in having a very faithful little chronicler in Mary, and she tells us of many interesting and touching incidents that otherwise might never reach us. She has also given us the details of the noble Wilder Dwight's death. It is unnecessary to say how deeply we were moved. I had the pleasure of knowing him well, and I always appreciated his energy, his manliness, and his intelligent, cheerful heroism. I look back upon him now as a kind of heroic type of what a young New-Englander ought to be and was. After all, what was your Chevy Chase to stir blood with like a trumpet? What noble principle, what deathless interest, was there at stake? Nothing but a bloody fight between a set of noble gamekeepers on one side, and of noble poachers on the other! And because they fought well and hacked each other to pieces like devils, they have been heroes for centuries.

Of course you know of Cairnes's book, and of John Mill's article in the “Westminster Review” for October, and of the sustained pluck and intelligence of the two Liberal journals in England, the “Daily News” and the “Star.” As for John Bright, I hope one day to see a statue raised to him in Washington. We must accept our position frankly. We are mudsills beloved of the Radicals. The negro-breeders are aristocrats, and, like Mrs. Jarley, the pride of the nobility and gentry.

Tell me, when you write, something of our State politics. It cannot be that these factionists can do any harm. But it is most mortifying to me that Boston of all the towns in the world should be the last stronghold of the pro-slavery party. I was interested in the conversation which you report:  “How many sons have you sent to the war? How much have you contributed? How much of your life have you put into it?” I hope there are not many who hold themselves quite aloof. For my own part, I am very distant in body, but in spirit I am never absent from the country. I never knew before what love of country meant. I have not been able to do much for the cause. I have no sons to give to the country. In money I have contributed my mite. I hope you will forgive me for mentioning this circumstance. I do so simply that you may know that I have not neglected a sacred duty. In these days in our country of almost fabulous generosity, I am well aware that what I am able to give is the veriest trifle; but as it is possible you might hear that I have done nothing, I take leave to mention this, knowing that you will not misunderstand me. I am not able to do as much as I ought. Your letters are intensely interesting. It isn't my fault if mine are stupid. Mary and Lily join me in sincerest regards to you and yours.

Ever your old friend,

J. L. M.

SOURCE: George William Curtis, editor, The Correspondence of John Lothrop Motley in Two Volumes, Library Edition, Volume 2, p. 291-3

Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes to John L. Motley, February 3, 1862

BOSTON, February 3, 1862.

. . . We are the conquerors of nature, they¹ of nature's weaker children. We thrive on reverses and disappointments. I have never believed they could endure them. Like Prince Rupert's drop, the unannealed fabric of rebellion shuts an explosive element in its resisting shell that will rend it in pieces as soon as its tail, not its head, is fairly broken off. That is what I think — I, safe prophet of a private correspondence, free to be convinced of my own ignorance and presumption by events as they happen, and to prophesy again; for what else do we live for but to guess the future, in small things or great, that we may help to shape it or ourselves to it? Your last letter was so full of interest by the expression of your own thoughts and the transcripts of those of your English friends, especially the words of John Bright,—one of the two foreigners that I want to see and thank, the other being Count Gasparin, — that I feel entirely inadequate to make any fitting return for it. I meet a few wise persons, who for the most part know little; some who know a good deal, but are not wise. I was at a dinner at Parker's the other day, where Governor Andrew and Emerson and various unknown dingy-linened friends met to hear Mr. Conway, the not unfamous Unitarian minister of Washington, Virginia-born, with seventeen secesh cousins, fathers, and other relatives, tell of his late experiences at the seat of government. He had talked awhile with Father Abraham, who, as he thinks, is honest enough. He himself is an out-and-out immediate emancipationist, believes that is the only way to break the strength of the South, that the black man is the life of the South, that the Southerners dread work above all things, and cling to the slave as a drudge that makes life tolerable to them. He believes that the blacks know all that is said and done with reference to them in the North; that their longing for freedom is unutterable; that once assured of it under Northern protection, the institution would be doomed. I don't know whether you remember Conway's famous “One Path” sermon of six or eight years ago. It brought him immediately into notice. I think it was Judge Curtis (Ben) who commended it to my attention. He talked with a good deal of spirit. I know you would have gone with him in his leading ideas. Speaking of the communication of knowledge among the slaves, he said if he were on the Upper Mississippi and proclaimed emancipation, it would be told in New Orleans before the telegraph could carry the news there.

I am busy with my lectures at the college, and don't see much of the world, but I will tell you what I see and hear from time to time, if you like to have me. I gave your message to the club, who always listen with enthusiasm when your name is mentioned. My boy is here still, detailed on recruiting duty, quite well. I hope you are all well, and free from all endemic irritations such as Sir Thomas Browne refers to when he says that “colical persons will find little comfort in Austria or Vienna.”

With kindest remembrances to you all,

Yours always,

O. W. H.

_______________

¹ The Confederates.

SOURCE: George William Curtis, editor, The Correspondence of John Lothrop Motley in Two Volumes, Library Edition, Volume 2, p. 232-4

John Bright to John L. Motley, January 9, 1862

Rochdale, January 9, 1862.

I Received your letter with great pleasure, and I should have written to you sooner save for the sore anxiety which has pressed upon me of late in dread of the calamity from which escape seemed so unlikely. The news received here last night, if correct, gives us reason to believe that the immediate danger is over, and that your government, looking only to the great interests of the Union, has had the wisdom and the courage to yield, in the face of menaces calculated to excite the utmost passion, and such as it would not have been subjected to had the internal tranquillity of the Union been undisturbed. What has happened will leave a great grievance in the minds of your people, and may bear evil fruit hereafter; for there has been shown them no generosity such as became a friendly nation, and no sympathy with them in their great calamity. I must ask you, however, to understand that all Englishmen are not involved in this charge. Our ruling class, by a natural instinct, hates democratic and republican institutions, and it dreads the example of the United States upon its own permanency here. You have a sufficient proof of this in the violence with which I have been assailed because I pointed to the superior condition of your people, and to the economy of your government, and to the absence of “foreign politics” in your policy, saving you from the necessity of great armaments and wars and debt. The people who form what is called “society” at the “West End” of London, whom you know well enough, are as a class wishful that your democratic institutions should break down, and that your country should be divided and enfeebled. I am not guessing at this; I know it to be true; and it will require great care on the part of all who love peace to prevent further complications and dangers.

The immediate effect of the discussions of the last month and of the moderation and courage of your government has been favorable to the North, and men have looked with amazement and horror at the project of enlisting England on the side of slavedom; and I am willing to hope that, as your government shows strength to cope with the insurrection, opinion here will go still more in the right direction. The only danger I can see is in the blockade and in the interruption of the supply of cotton. The governments of England and France may imagine that it would relieve the industry of the two countries to raise the blockade; but this can only be done by negotiation with your government or by making war upon it. I don't see how your government can at present consent to do it, and if it has some early success, the idea of war may be abandoned if it has already been entertained.

Charleston harbor is now a thing of the past; if New Orleans and Mobile were in possession of the government, then the blockade might be raised without difficulty, for Savannah might, I suppose, easily be occupied. Trade might be interdicted at all other Southern ports and opened at New Orleans, Mobile, and Savannah under the authority of the government. Thus duties would begin to be received, and cotton would begin to come down, if there be any men in the interior who are disposed to peace and who prefer the Union and safety to secession and ruin.

I hope all may go well. The whole human race has a deep interest in your success. The restoration of your Union and the freedom of the negro, or the complete control of what slavery may yet remain, are objects for which I hope with an anxiety not exceeded by that of any man born on American soil, and my faith is strong that I shall see them accomplished.

I sent your message to Mr. Cobden; he is anxious on the blockade question, but I hope his fears may not be realized.

When you come back to England I shall expect to see you, and I trust by that time the sky may be clearer.

I am very truly yours,

John Bright.

SOURCE: George William Curtis, editor, The Correspondence of John Lothrop Motley in Two Volumes, Library Edition, Volume 2, p. 226-8

Speech of John Bright [Extract]: August 1, 1861

I think that, just now, if you can find a man who on questions of great state policy agrees with us, at the same time having a deep personal interest in this great cotton question, and having paid so much attention to it as Mr. Cheetham has, — I think there is a double reason why he should receive the votes and have the confidence of this division of the county. (Cheers) Now, is this cotton question a great question Or not? I met a spinner to-day, — he does not live in Rochdale, though I met him here, — and I asked him what he thought about it; and he said, “Well, I think cotton will come somehow.” (Laughter.) And I find that there is that kind of answer to be had from three out of four of all the spinners that you ask. They know that in past times, when cotton has risen fifty or eighty per cent, or some extravagant rise, something has come, — the rate of interest has been raised, or there has been a commercial panic from some cause or other, and down the price has gone ; and when everybody said, “There would be no cotton at Christmas,” there proved a very considerable stock at Christmas. And so they say now.

I don’t in the least deny that it will be so; all I assert is, that this particular case is new, that we have never had a war in the United States between different sections of that country, affecting the production of cotton before; and it is not fair, or Wise, but rather childish than otherwise, to argue from past events, which were not a bit like this, of the event which is now passing before our eyes. They say, “It is quite true there is a civil war in America, but it will blow over: there will be a compromise; or the English government will break the blockade.” Now recollect what breaking the blockade means. It means a war with the United States; and I don’t think that it would be cheap to break the blockade at the cost of a war with the United States. I think that the cost of a war with the United States would give probably half wages, for a very considerable time, to those persons in Lancashire who would be out of work if there was no cotton, to say nothing at all of the manifest injustice and wrong against all international law, that a legal and effective blockade should be interfered with by another country.

It is not exactly the business of this meeting, but my opinion is, that the safety of the product on which this county depends rests far more on the success of the Washington government than upon its failure; and I believe nothing could be more monstrous than for us, who are not very averse to war ourselves, to set up for critics, carping, cavilling critics, of what the Washington government is doing. I saw a letter the other day from an Englishman, resident for twenty-five years in Philadelphia, a merchant there, and a very prosperous merchant. He said, “I prefer the institutions of this country (the , United States) very much to yours in England”; but he says also, “If it be once admitted that here we have no country and no government, but that any portion of these United States can break off from the central government whenever it pleases, then it is time for me to pack up what I have, and to go somewhere where there is a country and a government”

Well, that is the pith of this question. Do you suppose that, if Lancashire and Yorkshire thought that they would break off from the United Kingdom, those newspapers which are now preaching every kind of moderation to the government of Washington would advise the government in London to allow these two counties to set up a special government for themselves? When the people in Ireland wished to secede, was it proposed in London that they should be allowed to secede peaceably? Nothing of the kind. I am not going to defend what is taking place in a country that is well able to defend itself. But I advise you, and I advise the people of England, to abstain from applying to the United States doctrines and principles which we never apply to our own case. At any rate, they have never fought “for the balance of power ” in Europe. They have never fought to keep up a decaying empire. They have never squandered the money of their people in such phantom expeditions as we have been engaged in. And now at this moment, when you are told that they are going to be ruined by their vast expenditure, the sum that they are now going. To raise in the great emergency of this grievous war is no greater than what we raise every year during a time of peace. (Loud cheers.) They say that they are not going to liberate slaves. No; the object of the Washington government is to maintain their own Constitution, and to act legally, as it permits and requires.

No man is more in favor of peace than I am; no man has denounced war more than I have, probably, in this country; few men, in their public life, have suffered more obloquy — I had almost said, more indignity — in consequence of it. But I cannot, for the life of me, see, upon any of those principles upon which states are governed now, —— I say nothing of the literal word of the New Testament, — I cannot see how the state of affairs in America, with regard to the United States government, could have been different from what it is at this moment. We had a heptarchy in this country, and it was thought to be a good thing to get rid of it, and to have a united nation. If the thirty-three or thirty-four States of the American Union can break off whenever they like, I can see nothing but disaster and confusion throughout the whole of that continent. I say that the war, be it successful or not, be it Christian or not, be it wise or not, is a war to sustain the government and to sustain the authority of a great nation; and that the people of England, if they are true to their own sympathies, to their own history, and to their own great act of 1834, to which reference has already been made, will have no sympathy with those who wish to build up a great empire on the perpetual bondage of millions of their fellow-men. (Loud cheers.)

SOURCE: John Bright Moore, Speeches of John Bright, M.P., on the American Question, p. 1-7