Showing posts with label Prizes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Prizes. Show all posts

Friday, November 27, 2020

Flag Officer Samuel F. Dupont to Gustavus V. Fox, May 31, 1862

Confidential 
Wabash, 31. May. 62. 
My Dear Sir 

I found the accumulation of men from Prizes so great and the Bienville's Engines so precarious from being out of line, that I determined to send her home.

You will see that we have smashing work with the “Joint Stock company” for running the blockade and I hope we shall catch more of them, but I think you will have to look out for Wilmington, for they will go from Charleston there. Prentiss has fixed Georgetown by going inside as I wrote you. You had better write to McKean about Indian River, there is a possible tran-shipment there, for there is a road from that inlet clear up to Volusia. Except this place Indian River inlet one hd miles below Cape Carnavaral and Wilmington I think all else is as tight as it can be, though I have greatly regretted that the Stono operations have taken so many gunboats from Charleston at this momentbut they are likely to be important for I believe the rebels have discovered the egregious blunder they made in letting go the Forts on Coles island and the old Fort higher up and want to reoccupy the latter fortunately I got Drayton up in time with the Pawnee to go in there, adding Huron to his force—but I am waiting to hear the exact state of things with some earnestness.

The army people have no orders on the matter alluded to in the Confidential dispatch to me, but are studying out things and looking to occupying the Stono.

I see with regret the want of success in the James River with the iron boat, showing more invulnerability on the part of the Monitor than power of aggression.

Think coolly and dispassionately on the main object -remember there is no running the gauntlet, night or day—no bombardment of a week to fatigue and demoralize the defences of the Mississippi the merest shams in comparison—for thirteen long months it has been the remark of our blockading officers that the industry of these rebels in their harbour defences is beyond all praise, it has been ceaseless day and night Sumpter has been strengthened by a water battery attached to it—Cummings Point is covered by heavy works—the Middle ground likewise is piled and fortified-Fort Johnston that reduced Sumpter still improved. Castle Pinckney and Moultrie then come, and all this mind ye in a ‘cul de sac’ or bog. I merely allude to all this, that your own intelligent and brave mind may not be carried away by a superficial view of recent events, where the results have been thank God for his mercies, so great that the difficulties have been naturally overrated. I only have to add on this subject, that if the enemy do their duty as we expect to do ours, then it must be a 'do or die work—but this we are ready for and no mistake.

Since writing the above I have a letter from Drayton who has swept the Stono River up to the fort land. We had unpleasant reports yesterday through the Soldiers that the Gun boats had been driven back, though I told the Gen' there was not a word of truth in it.

I avail myself of Drayton Report to write a full account of our occupation there, having only been informed unofficially of the fact-it is a handsome thing and very important. They have no transportation, five transports have been taken from them lately. They have to throw themselves on me, but—they give me no notice until they are in a state of despondency or despair fortunately I have the Alabama and Bienville in, they will give them important aid; but I have to send my tugs to Beaufort 14 miles to get their troops, they have no Pilots, they have nothing. Still as I have cleared James' Island for them they are anxious to possess it.

They are credited with 18,000 men; if they land 9 thousand they will do well. Wright is in Edisto where our people, Rhind's command are doing everything for them-he is to march over to the Stono, also. They are very helpless. They sent a party to cut the R. R. from Port Royal Ferry, but it was not left to Stevens, and the party came back minus a captain and a private, having done nothing. All this only for your own ear.

I send a boy by Bienville with some arms (trophies) for you to dispose of—the sword is for yrself from Pulaski—a note inside to you explains.

[ocr errors]Please order that the Bienville must leave in two weeks, without fail. Oh that Flag! She left the 9th of March!

Ever yrs faithfully 
S. F. DP

Old Sedgwick is good deal of an elephant with his beef, but it is a good thing and we have got along!

Don't fail to read Drayton's report.

SOURCE: Robert Means Thompson & Richard Wainwright, Editors, Publications of the Naval Historical Society, Volume 9: Confidential Correspondence of Gustavus Vasa Fox, Assistant Secretary of the Navy, 1861-1865, Volume 1, p. 121-4

Friday, December 21, 2018

Gustavus V. Fox to John M. Forbes, April 1, 1863

Navy Department, April 1,1863.

I have your letter from near Halifax. Every steamer we capture that will carry one gun is invariably taken by the department and sent to the blockade. The Atlantic and Baltic are pretty nearly gone, boilers entirely so. The old Cunarders have not the speed. Earl Russell has written a letter to our government (received yesterday) which, in plain English, is this: “We have a right to make and sell. We are merchants; we sell to whoever will buy; you can buy as well as the South. We do not ask any questions of our purchasers. We shall not hound down our own industry. We are not responsible for anything. You can make the most of it.”

We infer from this bombshell that the government would be glad to have the South get out these ironclads, and that they will not afford us any aid. You can act accordingly. You must stop them at all hazards, as we have no defense against them. Let us have them in the United States for our own purposes, without any more nonsense, and at any price. As to guns, we have not one in the whole country fit to fire at an ironclad. If you dispose of their ironclads, we will take care of the whole Southern concern; and it depends solely upon your action in this matter; and if you have the opportunity to get them, I hope you will not wait for any elaborate instructions.

It is a question of life and death. Charleston will be attacked within ten days, and I hope we shall strengthen you with successes in other quarters. The Georgiana is disposed of.

Regards to Mr. A.

SOURCE: Sarah Forbes Hughes, Letters and Recollections of John Murray Forbes, Volume 2, p. 22-3

Wednesday, December 12, 2018

Diary of Gideon Welles: Friday, April 1, 1864

The Chronicle of this morning contains my letter with some errors, to the Senate in response to a call relating to transfers.  It makes some commotion among the members of congress, and will cause some in the War Department I presume.

There was nothing of special interest to day in the cabinet.  Stanton was not present, nor was Blair. Chase calls for largely additional taxes which I have no doubt are necessary.  There should have been heavier taxes the last two years.  At least double what have been collected.  Undoubtedly demagogues will try to prevent this necessary measure for party ends, but I believe the good sense and intelligence of the people will prevail over the debasing abuse of party.  I apprehend that Chase is not making the most of his position, and think he has committed some errors.  No one could have altogether avoided them.

Seward spoke to me concerning the case of the Sir William Peel, captured at the mouth of the Rio Grande.  Had carried contraband ostensibly to Matamoras, but portions had gone direct to Brownsville, and cotton brought direct from that place in return.  It is claimed, however that she was captured in Mexican waters though near the U. States, and therefore Seward says she must be given up.  I asked him to whom.  If captured in Mexican waters, no power but Mexico could make the claim.  This he undertook to deny, provided the government of Mexico was enfeebled by revolution and not able to sustain itself.  But, I told him, if able to assert and maintain neutrality, then she, and she alone could intervene.  If not able to maintain her claim of neutrality, no other one could make a claim of Mexican jurisdiction.

I am fearful he will make a miss-fire on this question.  He has never looked into maritime law, and will make any sacrifice of national or individual rights to keep in with England.

SOURCES: William E. Gienapp & Erica L. Gienapp, Editors, The Civil War Diary of Gideon Wells: Lincoln’s Secretary of the Navy, p. 383-4; *Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 3-4 which reprinted the entry of March 30, 1864 under the date of April 1, 1864.

Tuesday, July 17, 2018

Diary of Gideon Welles: Monday, February 29, 1864

A strong effort is on foot by naval officers who have been retired and their friends to set aside the law and the action under which they were retired. Working to an end persistently, without organized opposition, they may, with a weak Congress, effect their object, though to the public detriment. It would be easy for me to yield to my sympathies for these men and their families, who are in many cases most deserving of sympathy, could I disregard my duty and the public interest. To oppose them is to incur unforgiving resentment; to yield will be a disregard of my obligations. I shall not be sustained in standing firm by my friends; nevertheless my course is plain. I have prepared a letter that gives my views, which I will send to the two houses. A call is made for all correspondence that has taken place, as well as the meagre records of the Retiring Board. The correspondence cannot be collected without time, but the argument and record can go in at once.

Have received the prize law by Dana and Judge Sprague and made suggestions and corrections. On scrutinizing, it appears to need more emendations than I at first supposed.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 1: 1861 – March 30, 1864, p. 532

Thursday, April 19, 2018

Diary of William Howard Russell: July 2, 1861

At early dawn this morning, looking out of the sleeping car, I saw through the mist a broad, placid river on the right, and on the left high wooded banks running sharply into the stream, against the base of which the rails were laid. West Point, which is celebrated for its picturesque scenery, as much as for its military school, could not be seen through the fog, and I regretted time did not allow me to stop and pay a visit to the academy. I was obliged to content myself with the handiwork of some of the ex-pupils. The only camaraderie I have witnessed in America exists among the West Point men. It is to Americans what our great public schools are to young Englishmen. To take a high place at West Point is to be a first-class man, or wrangler. The academy turns out a kind of military aristocracy, and I have heard complaints that the Irish and Germans are almost completely excluded, because the nominations to West Point are obtained by political influence; and the foreign element, though powerful at the ballot-box, has no enduring strength. The Murphies and Schmidts seldom succeed in shoving their sons into the American institution. North and South, I have observed, the old pupils refer everything military to West Point. “I was with Beauregard at West Point. He was three above me.” Or, “McDowell and I were in the same class.” An officer is measured by what he did there, and if professional jealousies date from the state of common pupilage, so do lasting friendships. I heard Beauregard, Lawton, Hardee, Bragg, and others, speak of McDowell, Lyon, McClellan, and other men of the academy, as their names turned up in the Northern papers, evidently judging of them by the old school standard. The number of men who have been educated there greatly exceeds the modest requirements of the army. But there is likelihood of their being all in full work very soon.

At about nine, A. M., the train reached New York, and in driving to the house of Mr. Duncan, who accompanied me from Niagara, the first thing which struck me was the changed aspect of the streets. Instead of peaceful citizens, men in military uniforms thronged the pathways, and such multitudes of United States flags floated from the windows and roofs of the houses as to convey the impression that it was a great holiday festival. The appearance of New York when I first saw it was very different. For one day, indeed, after my arrival, there were men in uniform to be seen in the streets, but they disappeared after St. Patrick had been duly honored, and it was very rarely I ever saw a man in soldier's clothes during the rest of my stay. Now, fully a third of the people carried arms, and were dressed in some kind of martial garb.

The walls are covered with placards from military companies offering inducements to recruits. An outburst of military tailors has taken place in the streets; shops are devoted to militia equipments; rifles, pistols, swords, plumes, long boots, saddle, bridle, camp belts, canteens, tents, knapsacks, have usurped the place of the ordinary articles of traffic. Pictures and engravings — bad, and very bad — of the “battles” of Big Bethel and Vienna, full of furious charges, smoke and dismembered bodies, have driven the French prints out of the windows. Innumerable "General Scott's" glower at you from every turn, making the General look wiser than he or any man ever was. Ellsworths in almost equal proportion, Grebles and Winthrops — the Union martyrs — and Tompkins, the temporary hero of Fairfax court-house.

The “flag of our country” is represented in a colored engraving, the original of which was not destitute of poetical feeling, as an angry blue sky through which meteors fly streaked by the winds, whilst between the red stripes the stars just shine out from the heavens, the flag-staff being typified by a forest tree bending to the force of the blast. The Americans like this idea — to my mind it is significant of bloodshed and disaster. And why not! What would become of all these pseudo-Zouaves who have come out like an eruption over the States, and are in no respect, not even in their baggy breeches, like their great originals, if this war were not to go on? I thought I had had enough of Zouaves in New Orleans, but dȋs aliter visum.

They are overrunning society, and the streets here, and the dress which becomes the broad-chested, stumpy, short-legged Celt, who seems specially intended for it, is singularly unbecoming to the tall and slightly-built American. Songs “On to glory,” “Our country,” new versions of “Hail Columbia,” which certainly cannot be considered by even American complacency a “happy land” when its inhabitants are preparing to cut each other's throats; of the “star-spangled banner,” are displayed in booksellers’ and music-shop windows, and patriotic sentences emblazoned on flags float from many houses. The ridiculous habit of dressing up children and young people up to ten and twelve years of age as Zouaves and vivandières has been caught up by the old people, and Mars would die with laughter if he saw some of the abdominous, be-spectacled light infantry men who are hobbling along the pavement.

There has been indeed a change in New York; externally it is most remarkable, but I cannot at all admit that the abuse with which I was assailed for describing the indifference which prevailed on my arrival was in the least degree justified. I was desirous of learning how far the tone of conversation “in the city” had altered, and soon after breakfast I went down Broadway to Pine Street and Wall Street. The street in all its length was almost draped with flags — the warlike character of the shops was intensified. In front of one shop window there was a large crowd gazing with interest at some object which I at last succeeded in feasting my eyes upon. A gray cap with a tinsel badge in front, and the cloth stained with blood was displayed, with the words, “Cap of Secession officer killed in action.” On my way I observed another crowd of women, some with children in their arms standing in front of a large house and gazing up earnestly and angrily at the windows. I found they were wives, mothers, and sisters, and daughters of volunteers who had gone off and left them destitute.

The misery thus caused has been so great that the citizens of New York have raised a fund to provide food, clothes, and a little money — a poor relief, in fact, for them, and it was plain they were much needed, though some of the applicants did not seem to belong to a class accustomed to seek aid from the public. This already! But Wall Street and Pine Street are bent on battle. And so this day, hot from the South and impressed with the firm resolve of the people, and finding that the North has been lashing itself into fury, I sit down and write to England, on my return from the city. “At present dismiss entirely the idea, no matter how it may originate, that there will be, or can be, peace, compromise, union, or secession, till war has determined the issue.”
As long as there was a chance that the struggle might not take place, the merchants of New York were silent, fearful of offending their Southern friends and connections, but inflicting infinite damage on their own government and misleading both sides. Their sentiments, sympathies, and business bound them with the South; and, indeed, till “the glorious uprising” the South believed New York was with them, as might be credited from the tone of some organs in the press, and I remember hearing it said by Southerners in Washington, that it was very likely New York would go out of the Union! When the merchants, however, saw the South was determined to quit the Union, they resolved to avert the permanent loss of the great profits derived from their connection with the South by some present sacrifices. They rushed to the platforms — the battle-cry was sounded from almost every pulpit — flag-raisings took place in every square, like the planting of the tree of liberty in France in 1848, and the oath was taken to trample Secession under foot, and to quench the fire of the Southern heart forever.

The change in manner, in tone, in argument, is most remarkable. I met men to-day who last March argued coolly and philosophically about the right of Secession. They are now furious at the idea of such wickedness — furious with England, because she does not deny their own famous doctrine of the sacred right of insurrection. “We must maintain our glorious Union, sir.” “We must have a country.” “We cannot allow two nations to grow up on this Continent, sir.” “We must possess the entire control of the Mississippi.” These “musts,” and can’ts,” and “won'ts,” are the angry utterances of a spirited people who have had their will so long that they at last believe it is omnipotent. Assuredly, they will not have it over the South without a tremendous and long-sustained contest, in which they must put forth every exertion, and use all the resources and superior means they so abundantly possess.

It is absurd to assert, as do the New York people, to give some semblance of reason to their sudden outburst, that it was caused by the insult to the flag at Sumter. Why, the flag had been fired on long before Sumter was attacked by the Charleston batteries! It had been torn down from United States arsenals and forts all over the South; and but for the accident which placed Major Anderson in a position from which he could not retire, there would have been no bombardment of the fort, and it would, when evacuated, have shared the fate of all the other Federal works on the Southern coast. Some of the gentlemen who are now so patriotic and Unionistic, were last March prepared to maintain that if the President attempted to reenforce Sumter or Pickens, he would be responsible for the destruction of the Union. Many journals in New York and out of it held the same doctrine.

One word to these gentlemen. I am pretty well satisfied that if they had always spoken, written, and acted as they do now, the people of Charleston would not have attacked Sumter so readily. The abrupt outburst of the North and the demonstration at New York filled the South, first with astonishment, and then with something like fear, which was rapidly fanned into anger by the press and the politicians, as well as by the pride inherent in slaveholders.

I wonder what Mr. Seward will say when I get back to Washington. Before I left, he was of opinion — at all events, he stated — that all the States would come back, at the rate of one a month. The nature of the process was not stated; but we are told there are 250,000 Federal troops now under arms, prepared to try a new one.

Combined with the feeling of animosity to the rebels, there is, I perceive, a good deal of ill-feeling towards Great Britain. The Southern papers are so angry with us for the Order in Council closing British ports against privateers and their prizes, that they advise Mr. Rust and Mr. Yancey to leave Europe. We are in evil case between North and South. I met a reverend doctor, who is most bitter in his expressions towards us; and I dare say, Bishop and General Leonidas Polk, down South, would not be much better disposed. The clergy are active on both sides; and their flocks approve of their holy violence. One journal tells, with much gusto, of a blasphemous chaplain, a remarkably good rifle shot, who went into one of the skirmishes lately, and killed a number of rebels — the joke being, in fact, that each time he' fired and brought down his man, he exclaimed, piously, “May Heaven have mercy on your soul!” One Father Mooney, who performed the novel act, for a clergyman, of “christening” a big gun at Washington the other day, wound up the speech he made on the occasion, by declaring “the echo of its voice would be sweet music, inviting the children of Columbia to share the comforts of his father's home.” Can impiety and folly and bad taste go further?

SOURCE: William Howard Russell, My Diary North and South, Vol. 1, p. 367-72

Wednesday, February 28, 2018

Diary of Gideon Welles: Saturday, December 19, 1863

There was a reception to-day from one to three at the President's. Went over for an hour. Several of the Cabinet, most of the foreign ministers, judges of the Supreme Court, and a gay assemblage of ladies, with some of the Russian officers, were present.

Told Grimes he must remain on the Naval Committee; that the country required it; that we could not dispense with his services. He says he cannot serve under a chairman whom he knows to be corrupt, indolent, faithless, worthless. He spoke of Hale in most disparaging terms as an unfit associate of honorable men, selfish and wicked, wholly regardless of the Navy or country. There is not, he says, a man in the Senate that does not know him to be an improper person to be on the committee, yet they had not the courage to do their duty and leave him off, — in other words cannot resist his appeals to be kept in the position in order to aid him in a reëlection.

Sent a letter to Wilkes this afternoon inquiring if he procured, assented to, or knew of, the publication of his letter of the 11th inst. He coolly returns a negative, which does not surprise me, though palpably untrue. I am prepared to receive any affirmation of a falsehood or denial of a truth from him, provided his personal interest can be thereby subserved. His letter of the 11th is equivocal and in some respects untrue.

Had a call from Senator Trumbull, who feels that the Senate ought not to continue Hale in the chairmanship of the Naval Committee, but says the Department will not suffer in consequence, for Hale is well understood, and I must have seen that the Senators as against him always sustain the Department. Fessenden also called with similar remarks and views. I avoided the expression of any opinion, or wish, as to the construction of the committee. If the question were open and I was consulted, I should not hesitate to give my views, but I do not care to be intrusive, to interfere with or complain of what the Senate does, or has done, in these matters. Senator Fessenden wants a portion of the prizes should be sent to Portland. Told him of difficulties. Portsmouth, Providence, New Haven, New Jersey have made similar applications. Whatever pecuniary benefit there might be to a few individuals in each locality, the true interest of the country could not be promoted by such an arrangement. Attorneys, marshals, and their set would have additional business, but to get it, a host of additional officers must be employed and paid at each place.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 1: 1861 – March 30, 1864, p. 490-1

Saturday, August 12, 2017

Gideon Welles to Acting Rear Admiral Theodorus Bailey, August 26, 1863

Navy Department,
26 August, 1863.
SIR,

In the case of the Mont Blanc, seized by Commander Collins at Sand Cay as a prize, the Court decreed: “That the cause of the U. S. against the schooner ‘Mont Blanc’ and cargo, having come on to be heard, it is ordered by consent of all the parties interested that the vessel and cargo be restored to the claimant for the benefit of whom it may concern; that there was probable cause for the capture and detention of the vessel, and that each party pay his own costs.”

The proper tribunal having thus disposed of the question as between the parties, a further claim is presented by the British Government for damages for violated sovereignty, and the Secretary of State, who has communicated with Her Majesty's representative on this subject, having desired me to designate some person at Key West to confer with Vice Consul Butterfield on the matter of damages, I have presented your name to him for that duty.

The case being, in its present position, one of a political nature, the Secretary of State will furnish you with the necessary instructions, should the subject be prosecuted.

I am, respectfully,
Your Obd't Serv't
Gideon Welles,
Secty. of the Navy.
Acting Rear Admiral T. Bailey,
Commd'g. E. G. B. Squadron,
Key West.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 1: 1861 – March 30, 1864, p. 427

Thursday, August 10, 2017

William H. Seward to Gideon Welles, August 4, 1863

Dep't. of State, 4 Aug. 1863.
Hon. G. Welles, Secty. of the Navy.

Sir:— I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 31st ulto. relating to the case of the Mont Blanc.

The following seems to be the history of the correspondence on that subject:

On the 9th of Jan. 1863, Aubrey G. Butterfield, Esqr., British Consul at Key West, addressed to the British Consul at New York a note in which he stated that the Mont Blanc of Nassau, New Providence, A. Curry, Master, reached Key West on the 29th of December 1862, under charge of the Octorara; that she had sailed from Green Turtle Key for Port Royal, South Carolina, on the 6th of December and was captured on the 21st when at anchor at Sand Key, Bahama Bank, a mile off the shore. This letter having been transmitted to me by Lord Lyons with a request for investigation, I had the honor to communicate it to you on the 13th of January. On the 17th of January you communicated to me a letter from Commander Collins of the Octorara in which he narrated the capture, and you remarked in the letter which you addressed to me, on that occasion, that it appeared that he captured the Mont Blanc within a marine league of one of the Cays over which the English Government claims jurisdiction, and that the question of jurisdiction at the Keys and Reefs of the Bahamas is one that should not be disposed of without deliberation; for although the amount at issue (in that capture) might be small, yet the principle is important.

Acting Rear Admiral T. Bailey endorsed on the report of the capture made by Commander Collins, the words following: — “Forwarded and attention requested to the fact that one of the captures (meaning that of the Mont Blanc) was made within a marine league of one of the Keys of the Bahamas over which the English claim jurisdiction.”

The report of Commander Collins and the indorsement of Acting Rear Admiral Bailey thereon, were communicated to me by you and were afterwards made known to Lord Lyons in reply to his previous call upon this Dep't for explanation.

On the 2d of Feb. T. J. Boynton, Esqr., U. S. District Attorney at Key West, wrote to me to the effect that he had consented to the dismission of the libel against the Mont Blanc and her restitution to the master and claimant, for the reason that the evidence and statements of all parties left no room to doubt that the place where she was seized was within British waters.

On the 9th of Feb. you wrote to me a letter, saying that, in your previous letter, you had called my attention to the question of jurisdiction, not for the purpose of indicating that you had adopted any precise and fixed opinion on the particular question, but to call my attention to a matter which seemed likely to be followed by unlocked for and important consequences.

On the 11th of Feb. I had the honor to transmit to you a copy of Mr. Boynton's letter and on the same day communicated a copy of it also to Lord Lyons. On the 1st of May Lord Lyons replied under the instructions of the British Govt. to the effect that the seizure is admitted to have been made in British waters and while the Mont Blanc was at anchor; and Her Majesty's Gov't had accordingly desired him not only to express their expectation of compensation to the owners for the plain wrong done to them, but also to address to the U. S. Gov't a remonstrance against the violation of British territory committed in this case, and to request that orders may be given to the U. S. Navy to abstain from committing the like grave offense against international law and the dignity of the British crown.

To this note, by the President's directions, I replied on the 7th of May, last, that when this case was first brought to the notice of the State Department I had called upon the Secretary of the Navy for information which resulted in a confirmation of His Lordship's representations that the Mont Blanc was seized at anchor within a mile of the shore in waters of which Great Britain claimed jurisdiction; that the vessel having been carried into Key West for adjudication, the attention of the District Attorney there was directed to the case; that on the 2nd of Feb. the Dist. Attorney reported dismission of the case and restitution of the Mont Blanc to Master and Claimant because evidently it had been seized in British waters. That it seemed probable at that time that the master and claimant might have waived any further claim by assenting to the disposition of the case which was thus made without insisting upon a continuance of it for the purpose of obtaining damages. That I had now submitted the claim to the President, and was authorized to say that he admits that in view of all the circumstances of the case such compensation ought to be made and I therefore proposed the mode of settlement which was finally accepted, and which is mentioned in your letter of this date.

You now lay before me a copy of the order which was made in the Prize Court at Key West on the 19th of Jany., before Judge Marvin. In this order it is declared that the cause of the United States against the schooner Mont Blanc and cargo, having come on to be heard, it is ordered by consent of all the parties interested that the vessel and cargo be restored to the claimant for the benefit of whom it may concern; that there was probable cause for the capture and detention of the vessel and that each party pay his own costs. Having communicated this order to me, you inform me that Commander Collins feels that he was reproved for an honest and vigilant discharge of a difficult and responsible duty, and is sensitive on a point touching his professional reputation.

You remark that the judgment of the Court having the parties before it, and all the facts in the premises is an exculpation of Commander Collins, who nevertheless stands reproved and censured for doing that which the Court declares that he had probable cause for doing, and would therefore allow no costs, much less damages. You remark farther that you have felt it your duty to call my attention to this fact, not only to vindicate the opinion which you have so frequently expressed that all matters of prize should be left to the Court for adjudication without prejudice or prejudgment from the Department, but in justice to a meritorious officer, who has been censured for a faithful discharge of his duty and who is acquitted by the legal tribunal for this act in seizing the Mont Blanc.

You submit an opinion that Her Majesty's Representative will scarcely insist on damages because in his correspondence with the Gov't an incautious admission may have been made, while the Court, the proper tribunal, has investigated the case, and comes to a different conclusion.

Finally, you remark that it is but an act of simple justice to Commander Collins that the censure upon him should be removed, and that his record should remain unstained by the capture of the Mont Blanc.

I have submitted your note to the President together with the voluminous correspondence which it necessarily draws in review. It may be supposed, although it is not stated, that Commander Collins, in making the capture of the Mont Blanc, intended to furnish this Gov't with an occasion to raise a question whether the Key on which that vessel was captured was really within the maritime jurisdiction, although she was known to assert that claim; and it may be inferred that you intended in your letter of the 17th of Jany. last to intimate to the State Department that the capture presented an opportunity for raising that question.

However this may have been, Rear Adm'l Bailey's indorsement upon Commander Collins' report, and your own remarks upon it, were so expressed as to be understood to concede that the place of capture was within the proper maritime jurisdiction of Great Britain. But whatever reservation might have been practised on that question under other circumstances, it was quite too late for the Executive Government to raise it against the British Government after the Prize Court, with the consent of the Dist. Attorney and the captors, had dismissed the libel and ordered the restitution of the Mont Blanc, upon an agreement of all the parties that the place of capture was unquestionably within British jurisdiction.

So far as relates to damages, the ground was expressly taken in the correspondence with Lord Lyons that the master and owner had waived damages by accepting the decree and the restitution of his vessel. But there still remained a party and rights which the Prize Court did not foreclose. That party was the Gov't of Great Britain, and its claim was one for redress for injuries to its sovereignty and dignity by a violation of her territory. No prize court of our country can try and decide a national claim of this sort. It is a political claim only to be tried and adjudicated by the two Governments concerned. The records of the Gov't admitted the violation. It was confessed in the Court, and made the basis of the restitution of the vessel and her cargo to the owners. It is not perceived that the judgment of the Court now produced affects the disposition of the subject which has been made by the President. The judgment itself is a record that the national sovereignty of Great Britain was violated. And no shadow of a cause justifying the violation has been raised in the whole correspondence. There is nothing but self-defense that could excuse the exercise of aggressive national authority, confessedly on the shores or within the waters of a friendly or neutral nation. It is true the Judge says in that record that there was probable cause for capture, but in the first place, Her Majesty's Gov't was not a party to that cause, and could not be, the alleged violation of its dignity was not a question upon which the Court had cognizance; and no foreign nation is concluded upon such a claim by the judgment of a prize court in another nation.

The President alone is the judge of what indemnity or satisfaction was due to the British Gov't upon the claim which they presented to him; and having awarded that satisfaction, he is now of opinion that he could not, without giving national offense, withdraw or retract the satisfaction which he has awarded, and which Her Majesty's Gov't have accepted.

He is gratified with the evidence furnished that Commander Collins was actuated by loyal and patriotic motives in making a capture which has been proved to be erroneous. This explanation goes with the record, and it is not deemed unfortunate that the U. S. have shown their respect for the Law of Nations while they can excuse to themselves, but not to foreign nations, an unintentional departure from that law by its most trusted agents.

I have the honor to be, Sir,
Your Obedient Servant,
William H. Seward.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 1: 1861 – March 30, 1864, p. 418-23

Tuesday, August 8, 2017

Gideon Welles to William H. Seward, July 31, 1863

Navy Department,
31 July, 1863.
Sir,

On the 13th of May last I had the honor to receive a note from you enclosing the copy of a communication addressed to Lord Lyons, under date of the 7th of May, relative to the seizure of the British schooner Mont Blanc, at Sand Key, Bahama Banks.

In that communication, and in personal interviews, I was informed that it had been admitted by our government that Commander Collins had been guilty of “inconsiderate conduct,” and that “compensation ought to be made for the wrong done.” I was requested also to designate some person at or near Key West to ascertain the damage to be paid, and in view of these facts, the President directed that the attention of the officers of the Navy shall be distinctly called to certain instructions in a note of yours of the 8th of August last, — alluding I presume to certain suggestions communicated through you to this Department on that day, which eventuated in the instructions to Naval Officers on the 18th of August, 1862. I was moreover directed to make known to Commander Collins that by “seizing the Mont Blanc in British waters and at anchor, he had incurred the disapprobation of the President, and that any repetition will be visited with more severe and effective censure.”

In carrying into effect these views, I took occasion to express to you, as I had on other occasions, the opinion that the subjects involved belonged to the courts rather than the Departments, and that with all the facts and circumstances before them, the judicial tribunals would arrive at more correct conclusions than we could with only limited and ex-parte information. As requested, however, I designated Acting Rear Admiral Bailey to adjudicate or pass upon the question of damages and informed Commander Collins that he had incurred the displeasure of the President. That officer, feeling that he was reproved for an honest and vigilant discharge of a difficult and responsible duty, and sensitive on a point touching his professional reputation, has procured and forwarded to the Department the final order of the Court at Key West, in the case of the Mont Blanc, a copy of which I have the honor to transmit herewith. From this final order of Judge Marvin it will be seen that, although by consent of all the parties in interest, the vessel and cargo were restored to the claimants, yet it was decided by the Court “that there was probable cause for the capture and detention of the vessel and that each party pay its own costs.”

The judgment of the Court, having the parties before it and all the facts in the premises, is an exculpation of Commander Collins, who nevertheless stands reproved and censured for doing that which the Court declares he had probable cause for doing, and would therefore allow no costs, much less damages.

I have felt it my duty to call your attention to this fact, not only to vindicate the opinion which I have so frequently expressed, that all matters of prize should be left to the Courts for adjudication, without prejudice or pre-judgment from the Departments, but in justice to a meritorious officer who has been censured for what he believed a faithful discharge of his duty, and who is acquitted by the legal tribunal for his act in seizing the Mont Blanc.

I apprehend Her Majesty's representative will scarcely insist on damages because, in his correspondence with the government, an incautious admission may have been made, while the court, the proper tribunal, has investigated the case and come to a different conclusion.

I think, moreover, it is an act of simple justice to Commander Collins that the censure upon him should be removed and that his record should remain unstained by the capture of the Mont Blanc.

Very respectfully,
Gideon Welles,
Secty. of Navy.
HON. WM. H. SEWARD,
Secty. of State

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 1: 1861 – March 30, 1864, p. 417-8

Tuesday, July 18, 2017

Diary of Gideon Welles: Tuesday, August 4, 1863

Very warm. Little done at Cabinet. Seward undertook to talk wise in relation to Commander Collins and the Mont Blanc, but really betrayed inexcusable ignorance of the subject of prize and prize courts, and admiralty law, the responsibilities of an officer, etc.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 1: 1861 – March 30, 1864, p. 394

Wednesday, April 12, 2017

Diary of Gideon Welles: Friday, May 29, 1863

We have accounts of farther and extensive depredations by the Alabama. These depredations were near the Line, where the Department, in anticipation of her appearance, had ordered the Vanderbilt. She was specially ordered to Fernando de Noronha, whither the Alabama was expected to go, — where she did go, and where she would have been captured, had instructions been obeyed, and not interfered with. But Admiral Wilkes, having fallen in with that vessel and finding her a commodious ship with extensive and comfortable accommodations, deliberately annexed her to his squadron and detained her in the West Indies as his flagship, hunting prizes, too long for the service on which she was specially sent. I, of course, shall be abused for the escape of the Alabama and her destruction of property by those who know nothing of the misconduct of Wilkes. The propriety of recalling that officer is more apparent than ever. He has accomplished nothing, but has sadly interrupted and defeated the plans of the Department. The country, ignorant of these facts and faults, will disapprove his removal, and assail the Department for the mischief of the Alabama, whereas, had he been earlier removed, the latter would not have happened.

I this morning sent for Admiral Foote and had a free and full talk with him in regard to the command of the South Atlantic Squadron. I am satisfied he would be pleased with the position, and really desired it when he knew Du Pont was to be relieved. I then introduced him to General Gillmore, and with the charts and maps before us took a rapid survey of the harbor and plan of operations. Before doing this, I said to Foote that I thought it would be well for the country, the service, and himself, were Admiral Dahlgren associated with him. He expressed the pleasure it would give him, but doubted if D. would consent to serve as second.

I requested Mr. Fox to call on D. and inform him that I had given Foote the squadron, that I should be glad to have him embark with Foote, and take an active part against Charleston. If he responded favorably, I wished him to come with Fox to the conference. Fox returned with an answer that not only was D. unwilling to go as second, but that he wished to decline entirely, unless he could have command of both naval and land forces. This precludes farther thought of him. I regret it for his own sake. It is one of the errors of a lifetime. He has not seen the sea service he ought for his rank, and there is a feeling towards him, on account of his advancement, among naval men which he had now an opportunity to remove. No one questions his abilities as a skillful and scientific ordnance officer, but some of his best friends in his profession doubt his capability as a naval officer on such duty as is here proposed. It is doubtful if he ever will have another so good an opportunity.

Foote says he will himself see D., and has a conviction that he can induce him to go with him. I doubt it. Dahlgren is very proud and aspiring, and will injure himself and his professional standing in consequence. With undoubted talents of a certain kind he has intense selfishness, and I am sorry to see him on this occasion, as I have seen him on others, regardless of the feelings and rights of officers of greater experience, who have seen vastly more sea service and who possess high naval qualities and undoubted merit. In a matter of duty, such as this, he shows what is charged upon him, — that he is less devoted to the country than to himself, that he never acts on any principle of self-sacrifice. While friendly to him, as I have shown on repeated occasions, I am friendly to others also, and must respect their feelings and protect their rights.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 1: 1861 – March 30, 1864, p. 316-8

Monday, March 27, 2017

Diary of Gideon Welles: Saturday, May 16, 1863

Saw Seward this morning respecting Wilkes. After talking over the subject, he said he cared nothing about Wilkes, that if he was removed he would be made a martyr, and both he (S.) and myself would be blamed and abused by the people, who knew not the cause that influenced and governed us. He then for the first time alluded to the removal of Butler, which he said was a necessity to appease France. Nevertheless France was not satisfied, yet Butler's removal had occasioned great discontent and called down much censure. If I could stand the recall of Wilkes, he thought he could. I answered him that any abuse of me in the discharge of my duty and when I knew I was right would never influence my course. In this case I could better stand his recall than the responsibility of sending him into the Pacific, where he would have great power and be the representative of the Government; for he is erratic, impulsive, opinionated, somewhat arbitrary towards his subordinates, and is always disinclined to obey orders which he receives if they do not comport with his own notions. His special mission, in his present command, had been to capture the Alabama. In this he had totally failed, while zealous to catch blockade-runners and get prize money. Had he not been in the West Indies, we might have captured her, but he had seized the Vanderbilt, which had specific orders and destination and gone off with her prize-hunting, thereby defeating our plans. Seward wished me to detach him because he had not taken the Alabama and give that as the reason. I care to assign no reasons, — none but the true ones, and it is not politic to state them.

When I was about leaving, Seward asked as a favor that I would address him a proposition that the matter of the Mont Blanc should be left to Admiral Bailey alone. The whole pecuniary interest involved did not, he said, exceed six or eight hundred dollars, and it would greatly relieve him at a pinch, if I would do him this favor, and harm no one, for the vessel had been seized sleeping at anchor within a mile of the Cays, and was retained by the court. I asked what he had to do with it anyway. He gave me no satisfactory answer, but went into the trouble he had in keeping the Englishmen quiet and his present difficulties. All of which, I take it, means he has loosely committed himself, meddled with what was none of his business, made inconsiderate promises to Lord Lyons, and wishes me, who have had nothing to do with it, but have objected to the whole proceeding, to now propose that Admiral Bailey shall be sole referee. This will enable him to cover up his own error and leave it to be inferred that I have prompted it, as B. is a naval officer.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 1: 1861 – March 30, 1864, p. 304-5

Saturday, March 25, 2017

Diary of Gideon Welles: Friday, May 15, 1863

The President called on me this morning with the basis of a dispatch which Lord Lyons proposed to send home. He had submitted it to Mr. Seward, who handed it to the President, and he brought it to me. The President read it to me, and when he concluded, I remarked the whole question of the mails belonged properly to the courts and I thought unless we proposed some new treaty arrangement it would be best the subject should continue with the courts as law and usage directed. “But,” he inquired, “have the courts ever opened the mails of a neutral government?” I replied, “Always, when the captured vessels on which mails were found were considered good prize.” “Why, then,” said he, “do you not furnish me with the fact? It is what I want, but you furnish me with no report that any neutral has ever been searched.” I said I was not aware that the right had ever been questioned. The courts made no reports to me whether they opened or did not open mail. The courts are independent of the Departments, to which they are not amenable. In the mails was often the best and only evidence that could insure condemnation. [I said] that I should as soon have expected an inquiry whether evidence was taken, witnesses sworn, and the cargoes examined as whether mails were examined. “But if mails ever are examined,” said he, “the fact must be known and recorded. What vessels,” he asked, “have we captured, where we have examined the mails?” “All, doubtless, that have had mails on board,” I replied. Probably most of them were not intrusted with mails. “What,'” asked he, '”was the first vessel taken?” “I do not recollect the name, a small blockade-runner, I think; I presume she had no mail. If she had, I have no doubt the court searched it and examined all letters and papers.” He was extremely anxious to ascertain if I recollected, or knew that any captured mail had been searched. I told him I remembered no specific mention, doubted if the courts ever reported to the Navy Department. Foreign governments, knowing of the blockade, would not be likely to make up mails for the ports blockaded. The Peterhoff had a mail ostensibly for Matamoras, which was her destination, but with a cargo and mails which we knew were intended for the Rebels, though the proof might be difficult since the mail had been given up. I sent for Watkins, who has charge of prize matters, to know if there was any record or mention of mails in any of the papers sent the Navy Department, but he could not call to mind anything conclusive. Some mention was made of mails or dispatches in the mail on board the Bermuda, which we captured, but it was incidental. Perhaps the facts might be got from the district attorneys, though he thought, as I did, that but few regular mails were given to blockade-runners. The President said he would frame a letter to the district attorneys, and in the afternoon he brought in a form to be sent to the attorneys in Philadelphia, New York, and Boston.

Read Chase the principal points in the Peterhoff case. He approved of my views, concurred in them fully, and said there was no getting around them.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 1: 1861 – March 30, 1864, p. 302-4

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

Diary of Gideon Welles: Tuesday, May 12, 1863

We have information that Stonewall Jackson, one of the best generals in the Rebel, and, in some respects, perhaps in either, service, is dead. One cannot but lament the death of such a man, in such a cause too. He was fanatically earnest, and a Christian but bigoted soldier.

A Mr. Prentiss has presented a long document to the President for the relief of certain parties who owned the John Gilpin, a vessel loaded with cotton, and captured and condemned as good prize. There has been a good deal of outside engineering in this case. Chase thought if the parties were loyal it was a hard case. I said all such losses were hard, and asked whether it was hardest for the wealthy, loyal owners, who undertook to run the blockade with their cotton, or the brave and loyal sailors who made the capture and were by law entitled to the avails, to be deprived. I requested him to say which of these parties should be the losers. He did not answer. I added this was another of those cases that belonged to the courts exclusively, with which the Executive ought not to interfere. All finally acquiesced in this view.

This case has once before been pressed upon the President. Senator Foot of Vermont appeared with Mr. Prentiss, and the President then sent for me to ascertain its merits. I believe I fully satisfied him at that time, but his sympathies have again been appealed to by one side.

Mr. Seward came to my house last evening and read a confidential dispatch from Earl Russell to Lord Lyons, relative to threatened difficulties with England and the unpleasant condition of affairs between the two countries. He asked if anything could be done with Wilkes, whom he has hitherto favored, but against whom the Englishmen, without any sufficient cause, are highly incensed. I told him he might be transferred to the Pacific, which is as honorable but a less active command; that he had favored Wilkes, who was not one of the most comfortable officers for the Navy Department. I was free to say, however, I had seen nothing in his conduct thus far, in his present command, towards the English deserving of censure, and that the irritation and prejudice against him were unworthy, yet under the peculiar condition of things, it would perhaps be well to make this concession. I read to him an extract from a confidential letter of J. M. Forbes, now in England, a most earnest and sincere Union man, urging that W. should be withdrawn, and quoting the private remarks of Mr. Cobden to that effect. I had read the same extract to the President last Friday evening, Mr. Sumner being present. He (Sumner) remarked it was singular, but that he had called on the President to read to him a letter which he had just received from the Duke of Argyle, in which he advised that very change. This letter Sumner has since read to me. It is replete with good sense and good feeling.

I have to-day taken preliminary steps to transfer Wilkes and to give Bell command in the West Indies. It will not surprise me if this, besides angering Wilkes, gives public discontent. His strange course in taking Slidell and Mason from the Trent was popular, and is remembered with gratitude by the people, who are not aware his work was but half done, and that, by not bringing in the Trent as prize, he put himself and the country in the wrong. Seward at first approved the course of Wilkes in capturing Slidell and Mason, and added to my embarrassment in so disposing of the question as not to create discontent by rebuking Wilkes for what the country approved. But when, under British menace, Seward changed his position, he took my position, and the country gave him great credit for what was really my act and the undoubted law of the case. My letter congratulating Wilkes on the capture of the Rebel enemies was particularly guarded and warned him and naval officers against a similar offense. The letter was acceptable to all parties, — the Administration, the country, and even Wilkes was contented.

It is best under the circumstances that Wilkes should be withdrawn from the West Indies, where he was sent by Seward's special request, unless, as he says, we are ready for a war with England. I sometimes think that is not the worst alternative, she behaves so badly.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 1: 1861 – March 30, 1864, p. 297-9

Tuesday, March 21, 2017

Diary of Gideon Welles: Monday, May 11, 1863

The President sent a note to my house early this morning, requesting me to call at the Executive Mansion on my way to the Department. When there he took from a drawer two dispatches written by the Secretary of State to Lord Lyons, in relation to prize captures. As they had reference to naval matters, he wished my views in regard to them and the subject-matter generally. I told him these dispatches were not particularly objectionable, but that Mr. Seward in these matters seemed not to have a correct apprehension of the duties and rights of the Executive and other Departments of the Government. There were, however, in this correspondence allusions to violations of international law and of instructions which were within his province, and which it might be well to correct; but as a general thing it would be better that the Secretary of State and the Executive should not, unless necessary, interfere in these matters, but leave them where they properly and legally belonged, with the judiciary. [I said] that Lord Lyons would present these demands or claims as long as the Executive would give them consideration, — acquiesced, responded, and assumed to grant relief, — but that it was wholly improper, and would, besides being irregular, cause him and also the State and Navy Departments great labor which does not belong to either. The President said he could see I was right, but that in this instance, perhaps, it would be best, if I did not seriously object, that these dispatches should go on; but he wished me to see them.

When I got to the Department, I found a letter from Mr. Seward, inclosing one from Lord Lyons stating that complaint had been made to his Government that passengers on the Peterhoff had been imprisoned and detained, and were entitled to damages. As the opportunity was a good one, I improved it to communicate to him in writing, what I have repeatedly done in conversation, that in the present state of the proceedings there should be no interference on his part, that these are matters for adjudication by the courts rather than for diplomacy or Executive action, and until the judicial power is exhausted, it is not advisable for the Departments to interfere, etc. The letter was not finished in season to be copied to-day, but I will get it to him to-morrow, I hope in season for him to read before getting off his dispatches.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 1: 1861 – March 30, 1864, p. 296-7

Tuesday, March 14, 2017

Diary of Gideon Welles: Tuesday, May 5, 1863

But little of importance at the Cabinet. The President read a brief telegram which he got last evening from General Hooker, to whom, getting nothing from the War Department, he had applied direct to ascertain whether the Rebels were in possession of the works on the heights of Fredericksburg. Hooker replied he believed it was true, but if so it was of no importance. This reply communicates nothing of operations, but the tone and whole thing — even its brevity — inspire right feelings. It is strange, however, that no reliable intelligence reaches us from the army of what it is doing, or not doing. This fact itself forebodes no good.

Sumner came in this afternoon and read to me from two or three documents — one the late speech of the Solicitor of the Treasury in the British Parliament on the matter of prize and prize courts — which are particularly favorable to our views in the Peterhoff case. From this we got on to the absorbing topic of the army under Hooker. Sumner is hopeful, and if he did not inspire me with his confidence, I was made glad by his faith. The President came in while we were discussing the subject, and, as is his way, at once earnestly participated. His suggestions and inferences struck me as probable, hopeful, nothing more. Like the rest of us, he wants facts; without them we have only surmises and surmises indicate doubt, uncertainty. He is not informed of occurrences as he should be, but is in the dark, with no official data, which confirms me in the belief that the War Department is in ignorance, for they would not withhold favorable intelligence from him, yet it is strange, very strange. In the absence of news the President strives to feel encouraged and to inspire others, but I can perceive he has doubts and misgivings, though he does not express them. Like my own, perhaps, his fears are the result of absence of facts, rather than from any information received.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 1: 1861 – March 30, 1864, p. 292-3

Sunday, February 19, 2017

Diary of Gideon Welles: Monday, April 13, 1863


Wrote Seward a letter on the subject of captured mails, growing out of the prize Peterhoff. On the 18th of August last I prepared a set of instructions embracing the mails, on which Seward had unwittingly got committed. The President requested that this should be done in conformity with certain arrangements which Seward had made with the foreign ministers. I objected that the instructions which Mr. Seward had prepared in consultation with the foreigners were unjust to ourselves and contrary to usage and to law, but to get clear of the difficulty they were so far modified as to not directly violate the statutes, though there remained something invidious towards naval officers which I did not like. The budget of concessions was, indeed, wholly against ourselves, and the covenants were made without any accurate knowledge on the part of the Secretary of State when they were given of what he was yielding. But the whole, in the shape in which the instructions were finally put, passed off very well. Ultimately, however, the circular containing among other matters these instructions by some instrumentality got into the papers, and the concessions were, even after they were cut down, so great that the Englishmen complimented the Secretary of State for his liberal views. The incense was so pleasant that Mr. Seward on the 30th of October wrote me a supercilious letter stating it was expedient our naval officers should forward the mails captured on blockade-runners, etc., to their destination as speedily as possible, without their being searched or opened. The tone and manner of the letter were supercilious and offensive, the concession disreputable and unwarrantable, the surrender of our indisputable rights disgraceful, and the whole thing unstatesmanlike and illegal, unjust to the Navy and the country, and discourteous to the Secretary of the Navy and the President, who had not been consulted. I said to Mr. Seward at the time, last November, that the circular of the 18th of August had gone far enough, and was yielding more than was authorized, except by legislation or treaty. He said his object was to keep the peace, to soothe and calm the English and French for a few weeks.

Lord Lyons now writes very adroitly that the seizure of the Peterhoff mails was in violation of the order of our Government as “communicated to the Secretary of the Navy on the 31st of October.” He makes no claim for surrender by right, or usage, or the law of nations, but it was by the order of our Government to the Secretary of the Navy. No such order was ever given by the Government. None could be given but by law of Congress. The Secretary of the Navy does not receive orders from the Secretary of State, and though I doubt not Mr. Seward in an excitable and inflated moment promised and penned his absurd note, which he called an order when conversing with them, — gave it to them as such, — yet I never deemed it of sufficient consequence to even answer or notice further than in a conversation to tell him it was illegal.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 1: 1861 – March 30, 1864, p. 269-70

Tuesday, February 7, 2017

Gideon Welles to William H. Seward, March 31, 1863

Navy Department.
31 Mar., 1863.
Sir,

When discussing the regulations concerning “Letters of Marque,” &c a few days since, I made certain suggestions, and you invited me to communicate any views I might entertain, in writing.

I have felt some delicacy, I may say disinclination, to take any active part in this matter, because I have from the beginning of our difficulties discouraged the policy of privateering in such a war as this we are now waging. The rebels have no commercial marine to entice and stimulate private enterprise and capital in such undertakings, provided the policy were desirable. We, however, have a commerce that invites the cupidity, zeal and spirit of adventure, which, once commenced, will be difficult to regulate or suppress. A few privateers let loose among our shipping, like wolves among sheep, would make sad havoc, as the Alabama and the Florida bear witness.

It is proposed to encourage private enterprize to embark in undertaking to capture the two wolves or privateers that are abroad devastating the seas, and it is said, in addition to the wolves they may be authorized to catch blockade runners. The inducement, I apprehend, will not meet a favorable response. There may be vessels fitted out to capture unarmed prizes, but not of sufficient force to meet and overcome the Alabama; if not, the great end and purpose of the scheme will fail of accomplishment.

To clothe private armed vessels with governmental power and authority, including the belligerent right of search, will be likely to beget trouble, and the tendency must unavoidably be to abuse. Clothed with these powers reckless men will be likely to involve the Government in difficulty, and it was in apprehension of that fact, and to avoid it, I encountered much obloquy and reproach at the beginning of the rebellion, and labored to institute a less objectionable policy.

Propositions for privateers, for yacht squadrons, for naval brigades, volunteer navy, &c., &c. were, with the best intentions in most instances, pressed upon the Dep't, regardless of the consequences that might follow from these rude schemes of private warfare. It was to relieve us of the necessity of going into these schemes of private adventure, that the “Act to provide for the temporary increase of the Navy,” approved July 24, 1861, was so framed as to give authority to take vessels into the Naval service and appoint officers for them, temporarily, to any extent which the President may deem expedient. Under other laws, seamen may be enlisted and their wages fixed by executive authority; and the officers and men so taken temporarily into the Naval service are subject to the laws for the government of the Navy. An “Act for the better government of the Navy,” approved July 17,1862, grants prize money to “any armed vessel in the service of the United States,” in the same manner as to vessels of the Navy.

These laws, therefore, seem, and were intended to provide all the advantages of letters of marque, and yet prevent in a great measure the abuses liable to spring from them. Private armed vessels, adopted temporarily into the Naval service, would be more certainly and immediately under the control of the government, than if acting only under a general responsibility to law.

It will be necessary to establish strict rules for the government of private armed vessels, as to some extent they will be likely to be officered and manned by persons of rude notions and free habits. Congress after authorizing Letters of Marque in the War of 1812, adopted the necessary legislation for the vessels bearing them, by the Act of June 26th of that year. This act has not been revived. The recent “Act concerning letters of marquee” &c. &c. authorizes the President to “make all needful rules and regulations for the government and conduct of private armed vessels, furnished with letters of marque.” In pursuance of this authorization, the “regulations” have been prepared, embracing the provisions of the statute enacted during the War of 1812. These regulations establish, as the statute did, a penal code. They impose fines and assume to authorize punishments, including even capital punishment.

As suggested in our interview, I question the validity of such proceedings. Can Congress delegate this power of penal legislation to the President? and if to the President, why may it not to any branch of the Executive?

If it can be granted for this special purpose — the government of private armed vessels — why not for any other purpose? And if it can delegate the power of penal legislation, why could it not delegate any other power, or powers, to the President, to Commissioners, or even to a Committee of its own body, to sit during the recess? Why could it not delegate to the Secretary of the Treasury to legislate respecting imports and foreign trade, or to the Post-Master General full power of legislation respecting post offices and post routes?

The power of imposing penalties and inflicting punishments is the essence of legislative power, for it is the penalty of transgression that gives force to law. These regulations also establish rewards as well as penalties. They provide that a large bounty shall be paid to private armed vessels in certain cases. But no fund is appropriated for the purpose by the Act, nor has any provision elsewhere been made for it. Can Congress delegate to the President the power to appropriate the public moneys, or to take them without specific appropriation, or pledge the public faith at his discretion for an indefinite amount?

As I have already said, I have doubts in these particulars. They are expressed with some reluctance, because in the uneasy condition of the public mind, growing out of the lawless depredations of the semi-piratical cruisers that are abroad, I am unwilling to interpose anything which may be construed into an obstacle, to repress public indignation, which is so justly excited. I did not regret that Congress enacted a law authorizing letters of marque; because I verily believe that, with it, England can be made to prevent her mercenary citizens from making war on our commerce under a flag that has no recognized nationality. If the police of the sea is to be surrendered, and rovers built by English capital and manned by Englishmen are to be let loose to plunder our commerce, let England understand that her ships will suffer, and her commerce also be annoyed and injured by private armed ships. With her distant and dependent colonies, no nation has greater cause to oppose maritime robbery and plunder, such as is being inflicted on us by Englishmen and English capital, than Great Britain.

The West Indies are, notoriously, harbors of refuge for the corsairs that are plundering our merchants, as well as for the infamous and demoralizing business of running our blockade, to encourage the insurgents who are waging war on our government. Of these ports, those of England are the worst, and a vast amount of English capital is engaged in illicit traffic, and her people and authorities exhibit sympathy for, and afford aid to, the insurgents and their abettors, and corresponding opposition to this Government.

The English ship-yards are filled with vessels built and building for the rebel service, and if measures are not taken to prevent, these will soon swarm the seas to capture, condemn and destroy American property, without a port into which they can send their captures for adjudication. Enjoying greater advantages than the corsairs and sea-rovers that once infested the ocean, because protected, harbored, & sheltered by governments in alliance with, and professedly friendly to us, while ordinary pirates are outlaws, this species of lawless outrage cannot be permitted to go on.

England should be warned that we cannot permit this indirect war to continue with impunity — that it will provoke and justify retaliation, and that if her people and government make war upon our commerce, by sending abroad rovers with no nationality, to prey upon the property of our citizens, it will be impossible to restrain our people from retaliatory measures.

I am, respectfully,
Your Obdt. Servt.
Gideon Welles,
Secty. of Navy.
Hon. Wm. H. Seward,
Secty. of State.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 1: 1861 – March 30, 1864, p. 252-6

Tuesday, January 24, 2017

Diary of Gideon Welles: Saturday Night, March 7, 1863

The week has been one of steady, incessant employment. I feel I have been overtasked and am much exhausted. Must have rest.

Two rather important bills were got, I may say smuggled, through Congress, affecting the Navy Department, which I never saw. One of them, relating to an Advisory Board, was brought to the President for approval on the 4th of March, which he handed to me. On a hasty perusal I requested him not to sign it until it could have a more thorough examination. We sent for Grimes to make inquiry concerning it. He said the bill had never been discussed; he did not approve of it; that he had expected it would be killed in the House. The President passed it to me for criticism and farther examination, and return to him with my views. The other bill relates to matters of prize, and must have been got through surreptitiously. It is crude and objectionable in several respects.

Sedgwick, Chairman of the Naval Committee in the House, has been active in getting through a bill for the codification of the naval laws, and expects to perform the service of codification. All in the Department and the officers generally desire him to perform the service, but there are objections in my mind to his selection, which I should urge, were it not that the President has another candidate, a gentleman who has no knowledge of naval affairs or naval or admiralty law, but who, qualified or not, wants a place.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 1: 1861 – March 30, 1864, p. 245-6

Friday, April 29, 2016

Diary of Sarah Morgan: Monday, November 30, 1863

Our distress about Gibbes has been somewhat relieved by good news from Jimmy. The jolliest sailor letter from him came this morning, dated only the 4th instant from Cherbourg, detailing his cruise on the Georgia from leaving England, to Bahia, Trinidad, Cape of Good Hope, to France again. Such a bright, dashing letter! We laughed extravagantly over it when he told how they readily evaded the Vanderbilt, knowing she would knock them into “pie”; how he and the French Captain quarreled when he ordered him to show his papers, and how he did not know French abuse enough to enter into competition with him, so went back a first and second time to Maury when the man would not let him come aboard, whereupon Maury brought the ship to with two or three shots and Jimmy made a third attempt, and forced the Frenchman to show his papers. He tells it in such a matter-of-fact way! No extravagance, no idea of having been in a dangerous situation, he a boy of eighteen, on a French ship in spite of the Captain's rage. What a jolly life it must be! Now dashing in storms and danger, now floating in sunshine and fun! Wish I was a midshipman! Then how he changes, in describing the prize with an assorted cargo that they took, which contained all things from a needle to pianos, from the reckless spurt in which he speaks of the plundering, to where he tells of how the Captain, having died several days before, was brought on the Georgia while Maury read the service over the body and consigned it to the deep by the flames of the dead man's own vessel. What noble, tender, manly hearts it shows, those rough seamen stopping in their work of destruction to perform the last rites over their dead enemy. One can fancy their bare heads and sunburned faces standing in solemn silence around the poor dead man when he dropped into his immense grave. God bless the “pirates”!

SOURCE: Sarah Morgan Dawson, A Confederate Girl's Diary, p. 422-3