Albert G. Brown’s Speech on Millard Fillmore’s Message Concerning the Texas Boundary, August 8, 1850

SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AUGUST 8, 1850, ON PRESIDENT FILLMORE'S MESSAGE CONCERNING THE TEXAN BOUNDARY.

MR. BROWN said:—When the President's message was read at the clerk's desk on Wednesday, it struck me as the most extraordinary paper which had ever emanated from an American President. I have since read it carefully, and my first impressions have been strengthened and confirmed.

The document is extraordinary for its bold assumptions; extraordinary for its suppression of historical truth; extraordinary for its war-like tone; and still more extraordinary for its supercilious defiance of southern sentiment.

The President assumes that to be true which covers the whole ground in controversy, and to do this he has been driven to the necessity of suppressing every material fact; and having thus laid the basis of the message, he proceeds to tell us what are the means at his disposal for maintaining his positions; and winds up with a distinct threat, that if there is not implicit obedience to his will, these means will be employed to insure the obedience which he exacts.

Kings and despots have thus talked to their subjects and their slaves, but this is the first instance when the servant of a free people, just tossed by accident into a place of power, has turned upon his masters, and threatened them with fire and sword if they dared to murmur against his imperial will.

The President sits down to address his first important message to Congress, and, as if forgetful of his position, and mistaking this for a military, instead of a civil government, he tells us he is commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states when called into actual service. He next proceeds to inform us that all necessary legislation has been had to enable him to call this vast military and naval power into action. No further interposition of Congress is asked for or desired. His duties are plain, and his means clear and ample, and we are told with emphasis, that he intends to enforce obedience to his decrees.

A stranger, who knew nothing of our institutions, might well have supposed, from the reading of the message, that the President was a military despot; and to have seen him striding into the House of Representatives with a drawn sword, pointing first to the army, and then to the navy, and then to the militia, one, by a very slight transition, might have supposed himself in the presence of Oliver Cromwell, instead of Millard Fillmore. Why, sir, this redoubtable military hero, who "never set a squadron in the field, nor does the division of a battle know more than a spinster," talks as flippantly to Congress and the people about commanding the army and navy and militia of the United States, as if he were a conquering hero addressing his captives, instead of a civil magistrate making his first obeisance to his superiors.

Am I to be told by the friends of the President, that no threat was implied in his late insolent and insulting message—that he did not mean to threaten or menace Texas or the South, by the language employed in that paper? Then why inform us that he is commander-in-chief of the naval and military power of the government? Why buckle on his armor? Why present himself here panoplied, as if for war, if his mission was one of peace? Was it necessary for the information of Congress, or of the country, that the President should tell us that he is the constitutional commander-in-chief of the army and navy? Why tell us with so much of precise detail, what laws were in force amplifying his powers under the Constitution, if he did not mean to intimidate us? Why, sir, did he inform us that his duty was plain, and his authority clear and ample, if he did not mean to close the argument, and rely upon the sword? The whole scope and purpose of the message is clear and palpable. It was intended to drive Texas and the South into meek submission to the executive will. Instead of entering into a calm and statesman-like review of the matters in controversy, he leaps at one bound to his conclusions—asserts at once that Texas has no rightful claim to the territory in dispute. He plants his foot, brandishes his sword, and, in true Furioso style, declares that

"Whoso dares his boots displace,

Shall meet Bombastes face to face."

Well, sir, we shall see how successful this display of military power on the part of the illustrious "commander-in-chief of the army and navy" will be in bringing the South to a humiliating surrender.

If there be any one here or elsewhere, Mr. Chairman, who supposes that the President has acted properly in this matter, let me speak to him calmly. Is there an instance on record where a friendly power has gone with arms in his hands to treat with another friendly power? Texas is not only a friendly power, but she is a state of this Union, allied to us by every tie, political, social, and religious, which can bind one people to another. Her chief magistrate has witnessed with pain and sorrow, an attempt on the part of this government to wrest from his state a portion of her territory. He thinks the President may not be cognisant of these transactions. He knows it is being done without authority of law; and what course does he take? He writes to the President a respectful note, informing him, in substance, that an officer of the army, stationed in Santa Fé, had interposed adversely to the authority of Texas, and was fomenting discord, and exciting the inhabitants to rebellion. He made a respectful inquiry, as to whether this officer was acting in obedience to the will or wishes of the President. Now, sir, how was this inquiry answered? Did the President make a respectful answer to a respectful inquiry? No, sir. He goes off in a blaze of military fire; points to his military trappings—"Here is my army, here is my navy, and there is the militia; my mind is made up; I do approve of the conduct of my civil and military governor in Santa Fé; and if you attempt to displace him, or question his authority, war, war, war to the knife, will be the consequence.” Such, sir, is my reading of the President's message. Was there ever such a beginning to a friendly negotiation? Suppose Great Britian had sent a military force to take possession of our northeastern territory or of Oregon, and the British officer in command had issued his proclamation calling the inhabitants together to make and establish a government adverse to the United States, and in total disregard of her claim; suppose that, on seeing this, the President of the United States had addressed a respectful inquiry to the British government, to know if this proceeding was approved; and then, sir, suppose the British Minister had replied, "Her majesty has so many ships of the line, so many war-steamers. Her military resources are thus and so. She approves of the conduct of her officer in Oregon or in Maine. Her duty is plain, and her means ample for maintaining the authority she has assumed." What, let me ask you, men and patriots, would have been thought of conduct like this? Would the American President have dared to outrage the sentiment of his country by pocketing such an insult, and then proceeding with the negotiation? If he had, is there one man in all this broad land who would not, with his last gasp, have heaped curses and imprecations upon his head? And shall this government force an insult upon Texas, a sister of the confederacy, which she would not and dare not take from any power on God's earth?

I know not what course Texas may think it her duty to take in this emergency. But, sir, if she strike for her honor—if she strike for her altars and her firesides if she strike for liberty and law, I warn her oppressors that she will not strike alone.

But, Mr. Chairman, I have said that the President has virtually taken this question of the disputed boundary between Texas and the United States out of the hands of Congress, and has assumed, by an executive pronunciamiento, to settle the whole matter adversely to Texas; and I will show that he means this, if he means anything.

As for anything which appears in the message, Texas never had a shadow of claim to any part of the country in dispute. The President is particular in stating that the country was a part of New Mexico prior to the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and recites at full length the fifth, eighth, and ninth articles of that treaty, to show that the country belongs to the United States, and that he is bound to protect it by military power. But he wholly omits to say anything of the grounds on which Texas bases her claim; not one word of her revolutionary rights; nothing of her treaties with Mexico; not a syllable about her boundary as defined in her constitution of 1836; no reference to the negotiations which led to her annexation; nothing of the opinions of his predecessors and their cabinets, recognising the rights of Texas within the boundary as prescribed by her constitution; and lastly, no mention of the crowning act of annexation—the resolutions of March 1, 1845, by which the star of her existence was blotted out and her political institutions buried in those of the United States.

If Mr. Fillmore had thought it worth his while to look into these matters, he would have found his duty not quite so plain, nor the obligation quite so imperative to use the naval and military power of this government to crush Texas, if she dared to assert her rightful claim to the country in dispute.

I commend the history of this transaction to the President and his advisers before they commence hanging the Texans for treason. Perhaps it may be found that Texas acquired some rights by her revolution and by her treaty with Santa Anna. It may turn out that she placed the evidence of her rights on record in the enduring form of a written constitution. It may appear that these rights were recognised by every department of this government in its negotiations and debates on the. treaty of annexation. It will most certainly appear that these rights were solemnly recognised by this government in the final consummation of that treaty. By the resolutions of annexation, approved March 1, 1845, it was provided, among other things, that all that part of Texas lying south of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north latitude, should be admitted into the Union with or without slavery as the people might elect; and in all that part lying north of the said parallel of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes, slavery should be prohibited. Now, sir, what does this language mean, and why was it employed? Texas, as we all know, had defined her boundaries; she fixed her western limits on the Rio Grande, from its mouth to its source, and she extended her northern limits to the parallel of 42°. Hence, when she asked admission into the Union, there was no dispute between her and the United States as to where her boundaries were. She presented herself with fixed boundaries, and we took her as she was. By a solemn compact, as binding in its forms as a treaty between nations could make it, and as plain in its terms as our language could express it, we accepted her, and shaped her policy through all after time on the subject of slavery. Her territory north of 36° 30' was to be free, and all south of that line was to be slave territory. Such was the contract between Texas and the United States—the only contracting parties. Texas presented herself bounded on the west by the Rio Grande and on the north by the 42d parallel, and we took her as she presented herself. We had either to do this or not take her at all. All the debates, all the negotiations, all that was written or said on the subject pending the treaty of annexation, shows that this was the understanding of both parties. True, there was an outstanding dispute between Texas and Mexico about the separate or independent existence of Texas. Mexico denied the nationality of Texas. The United States admitted it; and treated with her as a sovereign. Mark you, Mexico did not dispute with Texas about a boundary, but about her separate national independence. We admitted Texas, by a treaty entered into between her and the United States, into the Union of these states, and we undertook to defend, to protect and maintain her against Mexico. We did this in good faith—we went to war with Mexico. That war resulted in Mexico giving up all the territory that lay within the limits of Texas, as defined by herself, and in her ceding other vast tracts of country to the United States. Now, sir, what do we hear? Why, that certain territory within her constitutional limits at the period of annexation, never did belong to Texas; but that it was an integral part of Mexico. And though we assumed to say how much of it should be free and how much slave territory, it was in truth and in fact foreign territory. By what right did the American Congress undertake to say that so much of Mexican territory as lay north of 36° should be free, and all below that slave territory? Congress undertook no such thing. We all thought then, as I think now, that the country belonged to Texas; and we consulted with no one else—contracted with no one else in regard to it.

The President has with great care traced out the line between the United States and Mexico, as defined in the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and has dwelt on the fifth, eighth, and ninth articles of that treaty with great apparent unction, as sustaining his position of hostility to Texas. Sir, what had Texas to do with that treaty? What matters it with Texas as to what contract the United States may have made with Mexico? Time was, when Texas was a sovereignty among the nations of the earth; we so acknowledged her; we contracted with her in that capacity—what she demands to-day is, that you fulfil the contract made with her. She is no party to your contract with Mexico; she demands good faith in the execution of that contract by which you obtained her sovereignty, and agreed to protect her against Mexico; she protests against your protecting her against Mexico, and dismembering her yourself.

When, Mr. Chairman, the President was telling us what were his duties under our treaty with Mexico, I pray you, was it not his duty to have told us what were his duties under the treaty with Texas? And when he was dwelling with so much delight upon the three articles of the treaty of Hidalgo, as the law which he was going to enforce with fire and sword, was it not worth his while to have made some passing notice of the treaty of 1845 with Texas? Or has it come to this, that a Free-Soil President feels under no obligations to execute a contract with a slave state? I suppose, with true Catholic instincts, he does not feel bound to keep faith with heretics.

Santa Fé, the country where Lieutenant-General Fillmore is going to halt his grand army, and through which, I suppose, Commodore Fillmore may be expected to sail with his naval fleet, lies not only south of the northern boundary of Texas-that is, 42° north latitude—but it is in fact south of the compromise line of 36° 30' by many miles. Not only has the President, in setting aside the legal boundary of Texas, as defined in her constitution and recognised by this government in various forms, outraged her rights, and covered at one sweep every inch of ground in dispute between the United States and Texas, but he has gone further, much further; he has established, or attempted to establish, a principle which threatens the very existence of Texas as a separate state.

What says the President? That he is bound, by the highest official obligations, to protect the Mexican inhabitants of Santa Fé or New Mexico, as he is pleased to call it, against the authority of Texas. He has announced, that if Texas attempts to assert her authority in that country, and to punish those who commit overt acts of treason against her, he will resist her with the whole naval and military power of the government. Bear in mind, that this country is within her limits, as defined by her constitution of 1836, and within the limits of the slave portion of this territory, as defined by the resolutions of annexation. Now, where does the President look for his authority thus to resist the authority of Texas? Not, sir, to the treaty of annexation, but to the treaty with Mexico, and to the eighth and ninth articles of that treaty. He finds here that Mexicans residing in the territory ceded to the United States by Mexico, shall be protected in their lives, liberty, property, and religion. Planting himself on these stipulations, he announces his fixed determination to defend the Mexican inhabitants against the authority of Texas. The treaty with Mexico is the only law for his government in this regard. He wholly discards and treats with contempt the treaty with Texas. He looks to but one boundary—that established by the Mexican treaty. He looks to but acquisition, and that the acquisition from Mexico. Now, sir, what is this boundary? and what this acquisition? The boundary is the Rio Grande to the southern limit of New Mexico, thence to the Gila river, and to the Pacific. The acquisition embraces all the territory lying between Louisiana and Arkansas and the Indian territory, on the one side, and this Mexican boundary on the other. We must recollect that Mexico never recognised the independence of Texas; and when we treated with her, we treated for California and New Mexico, and Texas from the Louisiana line to the Rio Grande. The President does not respect the line of Texas, as defined in her constitution and recognised by the resolution of annexation. He kicks this line out of his way, and has announced his intention to be governed alone by the treaty of Hidalgo. He says he will resist Texan authority below the line of forty-two degrees; aye, he will resist it below thirty-six and a half degrees. I know of no other line. The President admits in his message that he does not know where the true boundary is. Then it becomes a matter of interesting inquiry where his authority is going to stop. If the only boundary known to any law as existing between the United States and Texas, is disregarded, and the President is resolved to protect all Mexicans living on territory ceded to the United States by Mexico, and it is true, as we have seen, that Texas was as much а cession, so far as the treaty of Hidalgo is concerned, as New Mexico and California; and if the President is going to protect Mexicans against the authority of Texas in Santa Fé,—I should like to know how much further down he is going to extend his protecting care. Will he go down to Austin? Will he punish as far down as Houston? May Mexicans expect the shield of his protecting care in Galveston? Is the authority of Texas everywhere to fall before the triumphant march of this most valiant hero-this commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States? It might economize blood, sir, if this conquering chief would only deign to fix a boundary—put up a sign-post at the point where he intends to stop hanging and chopping off heads.

Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for true and genuine heroism; but I confess myself rather restive in the presence of the bastard progeny which this slavery agitation has brought forth. When we were threatened with thirty-nine western regiments, I grew impatient; when we were threatened with ten thousand Kentuckians, led on by the great compromiser, I felt still more provoked; but when Millard Fillmore mounts his Pegasus, and attempts to drive over us with the whole naval and military power of the nation, I cannot think or speak with patience. When Jackson threatened, there was dignity in the threat. When Taylor threatened, it was not quite contemptible; but for Millard Fillmore, a mere come-by-chance—a poor little kite, who has fallen by accident into the eagle's nest—when he attempts to play the hero, and to threaten the South, one scarcely knows what limit to fix to contempt and scorn. If these feelings have a deeper depth in the human soul, let the upstart hero, not yet warm in the seat of accidental honor, know and feel that he has reached that deeper depth in the heart of every true and faithful son of the yet proud and independent South.

What, Mr. Chairman, is the meaning of all this? Why does the President disregard the most solemn obligations? Why, sir, does he manifest so much of impatience to wrest successfully from Texas that which is so justly her own, and which she never can surrender without dishonor? And why, sir, independent of all considerations of justice and national faith, are we of the South bound to make common cause with Texas? Because, sir, you and I, and every other southern man, know that the question of slavery lies at the bottom of all these movements. That question out of the way, and the President and his cabinet, and his friends on this floor, would not care a single rush whether Santa Fé was in Texas or New Mexico. That question out of the way, and we should have no disputing about this country. The treaty obligations between the United States and Texas would be faithfully maintained, and harmony would be restored in twenty-four hours. Is it not melancholy, is it not alarming to every true patriot, to see that this war upon a section, this eternal and never-ending assailment of the South, has not only warped the judgment of the best and purest men of the North, but has so far influenced the action of the President of the United States, that he not only does not execute a treaty for the advantage of slavery, but, in dereliction of the plainest dictates of duty, absolutely refuses to do so? Can any man look at this state of things and not see the frightful end we are approaching? What was the manifest duty of the President, and in this conjuncture of our affairs—admitting that he thought, as I certainly do not, that there was reasonable grounds of dispute as to the true boundary of Texas? Was it not,

sir, to have occupied the country peaceably and quietly until the question was settled—taking no advantage to himself, and giving none to the other party? I hear a voice say, That is just what he did. Not so, sir. His predecessor, General Taylor, found a military government there, and he allowed that military government to foment disloyalty to Texas, and to take incipient steps for throwing off the authority of Texas. The acting President goes further, and not only approves this conduct, but gives us to understand that he means to maintain it by force of arms. The President knows full well that if the rebels against Texas throw off her authority and establish an anti-slavery constitution, a free-soil majority here stand ready to admit her into the Union as a state. It is said that the President never threatened to use military power until Texas had first threatened. We all know, Mr. Chairman, on what state of facts the movements of Texas have been based. We all know that Texas acquiesced in your sending a military establishment to Santa Fe, under an assurance that it was not to be used against her claim, or to her prejudice; and we all know that this same military power in the hands of the President was used to subvert the authority and trample under foot the rights of Texas. Thus it was, sir, when Texas saw herself, by means like these, driven from her rightful possession, that she first spoke of force. But even then, sir, she asked respectfully what was meant by all these proceedings, and whether the President approved them; and we have already seen in what spirit that civil inquiry was responded to. Texas would be unfaithful to her past history if she feared to assert her rights, or faltered in maintaining them against whatever odds.

In what attitude, Mr. Chairman, does the northern Democracy present itself on the question of the Texas boundary? It is within your recollection, that in the memorable political contest of 1844, Texas was inscribed on all our banners; and from the loud huzzas that went up continually, I thought it was inscribed on all our hearts. Mr. Van Buren was discarded, and Mr. Clay crippled in the affections of his friends on account of their mutual hostility to the project of annexation. Mr. Polk was nominated and elected on the issue. The measure was consummated in compliance with the people's mandate. War ensued, and the people turned out en masse to prosecute it to a successful termination. The first blood was shed between the Nueces and the Rio Grande; and the Democracy voted on their oaths that it was American blood shed on American soil. You defended the President through the whole of the war, always maintaining that the Texas we acquired, was Texas according to the constitution of 1836; Texas as she presented herself, and as she was accepted under the resolution of annexation. Now, where are you? Will you vote to-day as you voted in 1844? Will you vote to-day as you continued to vote through the whole of the Mexican war? And if not, why? I can understand a northern Whig who votes against the claim of Texas. He belongs to a party who was opposed to annexation; opposed to the war; opposed to the acquisition of additional territory; opposed to everything that you and I were for. But how you can oppose this claim, recognised as it has been in every form, supported as it has been by you and me through all its various forms and phases, I must confess myself at fault to understand.

There is one other matter to which I must advert. It is become quite too common of late, for certain political censors, in and out of Congress, to speak of southern men who demand justice for the South, as ultras; and if we persist in our demands, and can neither be bribed or brow-beaten into acquiescence with northern wrongs, the next step is, to whistle us down the winds as disunionists and traitors. It is not, sir, because I fear the effects of charges like these on the minds of my constituents that I now speak. They have known me for many long years; I have served them here and elsewhere; and if there is any earthly power to persuade them that I am a disunionist or a traitor to my country, I would scorn to receive office at their hands. I allude to charges like this, that I may hold them up to public scorn and reprobation. The miserable reptiles who sting the South while they nestle in her bosom, are the authors of these base calumnies. Sooner or later they will be spurned as the veriest spaniels who ever crouched at the footstool of power. I fancy, sir, that there is perfect harmony of sentiment between my constituents and myself on the subjects which now divide the North and the South. We are southerners and go for the Constitution, and the Union subordinate to the Constitution. Give us the Constitution as it was administered from the day of its formation to 1819, and we are satisfied. Up to that time Congress never assumed to interfere with the relation of master and servant. It extended over all, and gave to all equal protection; give it to us to-day in the same spirit, and we are satisfied. Less than this we will not accept. You ask us to love the Constitution, to revere the Union, and to honor the glorious banner of the stars and stripes. Excuse me, gentlemen; but I must say to you, in all candor, that the day has gone by when I and my people can cherish a superstitious reverence for mere names. Give us a Constitution strong enough to shield us all in the same degree, and we will love it. Give us a Union capacious enough to receive us all as equals, and we will revere it. Give us a banner that is broad enough to cover us as a nation of brothers, and we will honor it. But if you offer us a broken constitution—one that can only shield northern people and northern property—we will spurn it. If you offer us a union so contracted that only half the states can stand up as equals, we will reject it; and if you offer us a banner that covers your people and your property, and leaves ours to the perils of piracy and plunder, we will trample it under our feet. We came into this Union as equals, and we will remain in it as equals. We demand equal laws and equal justice. We demand the protection of the Constitution for ourselves, our lives, and our property. Wherever we may be, we demand that the national flag, wherever it may wave, on the land or on the seas, shall give shelter and security to our property and ourselves. These are our demands: will you comply with them? You have the power to grant or refuse them. Grant them, and our feelings of harmony and brotherhood will be restored. These evidences of decay that we witness all around us will vanish, and a strong, healthy, vigorous national prosperity will spring up. I shall not predict the consequences of your refusal; they are so plain that “a wayfaring man though a fool" cannot mistake them. They exhibit themselves in a thousand different forms—in the divisions of our churches, in the estrangement of family ties, in jealousies between the North and the South, in the gradual but certain withdrawal of all confidence and fellowship between the people of the two great sections. Where is the patriot heart that has not throbbed with the deepest anxiety as from day to day the growth and progress of these things has become more apparent? I will not dwell upon a theme so full of melancholy; but allow me to add, in conclusion, I sincerely hope your conduct may not force us in the end to say, We once were brothers, but you have become our enemies and we are yours.

SOURCE: M. W. Cluskey, Editor, Speeches, Messages, and Other Writings of the Hon. Albert G. Brown, A Senator in Congress from the State of Mississippi, p. 200-8

John J. Crittenden to Count Eugène de Sartiges, October 22, 1851

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, October 22, 1851.

The undersigned, acting Secretary of State of the United States, has the honor to remind M. de Sartiges, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the French republic, that in the interview which he had with him on the 8th instant, he stated that he might have occasion to address him in writing on the subject of the information which M. de Sartiges then communicated, that the French government had issued orders to its ships of war, then in the West Indies, to give assistance to Spain, and to prevent by force any adventurers of any nation from landing with hostile intent on the island of Cuba. Having imparted that information to the President, the undersigned has now the honor, by his direction, to address M. de Sartiges in regard to it.

M. de Sartiges is apprised that a few days prior to the interview adverted to the chargé d'affaires of her Britannic Majesty had given to this department official notice that his government had issued similar orders to its naval forces. The President had regarded this as a matter of grave importance, but its gravity is greatly increased by the concurrence and co-operation of France in the same measure. It cannot be doubted that those orders have been occasioned by the recent unlawful expedition of less than five hundred men, which, having evaded the vigilance of this government, and escaped from New Orleans, were landed by the steamer Pampero upon the island of Cuba, and were soon captured, and many of them executed. That such an incident should have incited the combined action of two great European powers, for an object to which neither of them is a direct party, and in a manner that may seriously affect the people of the United States, cannot fail to awaken the earnest consideration of the President.

He cannot perceive the necessity or propriety of such orders, while he entertains the strongest apprehensions that their execution by French and British cruisers will be attended with injurious and dangerous consequences to the commerce and peace of the United States. They cannot be carried into effect  without a visitation, examination, and consequent detention of our vessels on our shores, and in the great channels of our coasting trade, and this must invest British and French cruisers with the jurisdiction of determining, in the first instance at least, what are the expeditions denounced in their orders, and who are the guilty persons engaged in them. It is plain, however different may have been the intentions of the respective governments, that the exercise of such a power and jurisdiction could hardly fail to lead to abuses and collisions perilous to the peace that now so happily prevails. By such an interference those governments seem to assume an attitude unfriendly to the United States. The President will not, however, allow himself to believe that this intervention has been intended as an admonition or reproach to his government. He has signally manifested his condemnation of all such lawless enterprises, and has adopted active measures for their prevention and suppression. It must also be known to the governments of France and England, in common with all the world, that this government, since it took its place among nations, has carefully preserved its good faith, and anxiously endeavored to fulfill all its obligations, conventional and national. And this it has done from motives far above any apprehensions of danger to itself. From its beginning, under the present Constitution, it has sedulously cultivated the policy of peace, of not intermeddling in the affairs of others, and of preventing by highly penal enactments any unlawful interference by its citizens to disturb the tranquillity of countries with which the United States were in amity. To this end many such enactments have been made, the first as early as the year 1794, and the last as late as 1838. The last having expired by its own limitation, and all the preceding legislation on the subject having been comprehended in the act of Congress of the 20th of April, 1818, it is unnecessary to do more than to refer M. de Sartiges to its provisions as marking the signal anxiety and good faith of this government to restrain persons within its jurisdiction from committing any acts inconsistent with the rights of others, or its own obligations. These laws were intended to comprehend, and to protect from violation, all our relations with and duties to countries at peace with us, and to punish any violations of them by our citizens as crimes against the United States. In this manifestation of its desire to preserve just and peaceful relations with all nations, it is believed that the United States have gone before and further than any of the older governments of Europe. Without recapitulating all the provisions of those laws by which the United States have so carefully endeavored to prohibit every act that could be justly offensive to their neighbors, it is deemed enough for this occasion to say that they denounce all such enterprises or expeditions as those against which the orders in question are directed.

The undersigned thinks it is of importance enough to call the attention of M. de Sartiges more directly to this law. A literal copy of it is accordingly herewith communicated. Besides the ordinary legal process, it authorizes the President to employ the military and naval forces of the country for the purpose of preventing such expeditions and arresting for punishment those concerned in them. In the spirit of this law, the President condemns such expeditions against the island of Cuba as are denounced by the orders in question, and has omitted nothing for their detection and prevention. To that end he has given orders to civil, naval, and military officers from New York to New Orleans, and has enjoined upon them the greatest vigilance and energy. This course on the subject has been in all things clear and direct. It has been no secret, and the undersigned must presume that it has been fully understood and known by M. de Sartiges. An appeal might confidently be made to the vigilant and enlightened minister of Spain that his suggestions for the prevention of such aggressions, or the prosecution of offenders engaged in them, have been promptly considered, and, if found reasonable, adopted by the President; his course, it is believed, has been above all question of just cause of complaint. This government is determined to execute its laws, and in the performance of this duty can neither ask nor receive foreign aid. If, notwithstanding all its efforts, expeditions of small force hostile to Cuba have, in a single vessel or steamer, excited by Cubans themselves, escaped from our extensive shores, such an accident can furnish no ground of imputation either upon the law or its administration. Every country furnishes instances enough of infractions and evasions of its laws, which no power or vigilance can effectually guard against. It need not be feared that any expeditions of a lawless and hostile character can escape from the United States of sufficient force to create any alarm for the safety of Cuba, or against which Spain might not defend it with the slightest exertion of her power. The President is persuaded that none such can escape detection and prevention, except by their insignificance. None certainly can escape which could require the combined aid of France and England to resist or suppress. Cuba will find a sure, if not its surest, protection and defense in the justice and good faith of the United States.

There is another point of view in which this intervention on the part of France and England cannot be viewed with indifference by the President. The geographical position of the island of Cuba in the Gulf of Mexico, lying at no great distance from the mouth of the river Mississippi and in the line of the greatest current of the commerce of the United States, would become, in the hands of any powerful European nation, an object of just jealousy and apprehension to the people of this country. A due regard to their own safety and interest must, therefore, make it a matter of importance to them who shall possess and hold dominion over that island. The government of France and those of other European nations were long since officially apprised by this government that the United States could not see, without concern, that island transferred by Spain to any other European state; President Fillmore fully concurs in that sentiment, and is apprehensive that the sort of protectorate introduced by the orders in question might, in contingencies not difficult to be imagined, lead to results equally objectionable. If it should appear to M. de Sartiges that the President is too apprehensive on this subject, this must be attributed to his great solicitude to guard friendly relations between the two countries against all contingencies and causes of disturbance. The people of the United States have long cherished towards France the most amicable sentiments, and recent events which made her a republic have opened new sources of fraternal sympathy. Harmony and confidence would seem to be the natural relations of the two great republics of the world, relations demanded no less by their permanent interests than by circumstances and combinations in continental Europe, which now seem to threaten so imminently the cause of free institutions. The United States have nothing to fear from those convulsions, nor are they propagandists, but they have at heart the cause of freedom in all countries, and believe that the example of the two great republics of France and America, with their moral and social influences, co-operating harmoniously, would go far to promote and to strengthen that cause. It is with these views that the President so much desires the cultivation of friendly feelings between the two countries, and regards with so much concern any cause that may tend to produce collision or alienation. He believes that this Cuban intervention is such a cause. The system of government which prevails most generally in Europe is adverse to the principles upon which this government is founded, and the undersigned is well aware that the difference between them is calculated to produce distrust of, if not aversion to, the government of the United States. Sensible of this, the people of this country are naturally jealous of European interference in American affairs. And although they would not impute to France, now herself a republic, any participation in this distrustful and unfriendly feeling towards their government, yet the undersigned must repeat, that her intervention in this instance, if attempted to be executed, in the only practicable mode for its effectual execution, could not fail to produce some irritation, if not worse consequences. The French cruisers sailing up and down the shores of the United States to perform their needless task of protecting Cuba, and their ungracious office of watching the people of this country as if they were fruitful of piracies, would be regarded with some feelings of resentment, and the flag they bore-a flag which should always be welcome to the sight of Americans—would be looked at as casting a shadow of unmerited and dishonoring suspicion upon them and their government. The undersigned will add that all experience seems to prove that the rights, interests, and peace of the continents of Europe and America will be best preserved by the forbearance of each to interfere in the affairs of the other. The government of the United States has constantly acted on that principle, and has never intermeddled in European questions. The President has deemed it proper to the occasion that his views should be thus fully and frankly presented for the friendly consideration of M. de Sartiges and his government, in order that all possible precautions may be used to avert any misunderstanding, and every cause or consequence that might disturb the peace or alienate, in the least, the sentiments of confidence and friendship which now bind together the republics of the United States and France. The undersigned avails himself of this occasion to offer to M. de Sartiges the assurance of his very distinguished consideration.

JOHN J. CRITTENDEN.

M. DE SARTIGES.

SOURCE: Ann Mary Butler Crittenden Coleman, Editor, The Life of John J. Crittenden: With Selections from His Correspondence and Speeches, Vol. 2, p. 13-7

Senator Henry Clay to James Clay, March 13, 1850

WASHINGTON, March 13, 1850.

MY DEAR JAMES,—I have just received your favor of the 8th ultimo. I suppose that the bad state of things here has prevented Clayton from writing to you, and probably prevented the Executive from calling the particular attention of Congress to Portuguese affairs.

You will do well, if any arrangement can be effected of any of our claims, to obtain the written concurrence of the agents of the claimants, if they have any agents near you. And if none, and a real doubt and difficulty occur, not covered by your instructions, you had better take the matter ad referendum to your own Government.

We are still in the woods here, on the Slavery question, and I don't know when we shall get out of them. Bad feelings have diminished, without our seeing, however, land. All other business is superseded or suspended. I do not absolutely despair of a settlement on the basis of my resolutions.

My information from home is good. All are well there. Thomas continues to be encouraged by the prospects of his sawmill, and other prospects.

Tell Susan that I read her letter with great interest, and I have sent it to her mother. Her interview with the Queen, with all its attending circumstances, was quite imposing. As her health is so good at Lisbon, I do not think that you should be in a hurry to return home, although whenever you do come we shall be most happy to see you. Henry Clay, Jr., remains at the Georgetown College.

I have seen a good deal of Sir Henry Bulwer and his lady, both of whom are intelligent and agreeable. He promised me, as I believe I informed you, to write to Lord Palmerston on our affairs with Portugal.

Give my love to Susan, to Lucy and all the children. Tell Susan that I will write to her when I can.

SOURCE: Calvin Colton, Editor, The Private Correspondence of Henry Clay, p. 602-3

Diary of George Mifflin Dallas, March 16, 1861

The Duchess of Kent, the Queen's mother, died this morning, in her seventy-fifth year. Away go all further drawing-rooms, levées, and other palatial gayeties for this season. As possibly we shall not have an opportunity to see Queen Victoria again before quitting for home, I am somewhat pleased that we met her in her open carriage yesterday afternoon in Hyde Park and received her kind smile and bow. The Duchess was sister of the present King of Belgium, and, I believe, aunt of the Queen of Portugal; so, three Royal Courts are in deep mourning.

SOURCE: George Mifflin Dallas, Diary of George Mifflin Dallas, While United States Minister to Russia 1837 to 1839, and to England 1856 to 1861, Volume 3, p. 441

Diary of George Mifflin Dallas, February 6, 1861

Parliament was opened yesterday by the Queen in person. The military parade, turnout of royal equipages, and assemblage of Peers, Peeresses, Bishops, and Judges, were unusually imposing. The speech was fuller and clearer than common. The paragraph devoted to the United States was uttered as if really felt, though I certainly did not do what some of the newspapers allege,—nod my head with an expression of misgiving as to a “satisfactory adjustment."

"Serious differences have arisen among the States of the North American Union. It is impossible for me not to look with great concern upon any events which can affect the happiness and welfare of a people nearly allied to my subjects by descent, and closely connected with them by the most intimate and friendly relations. My heartfelt wish is that these differences may be susceptible of a satisfactory adjustment.

"The interest which I take in the well-being of the people of the United States cannot but be increased by the kind and cordial reception given by them to the Prince of Wales during his recent visit to the continent of America."

Went to the Commons at eight o'clock, and witnessed the first scene of what I cannot but regard, for the existing government, as an inauspicious breach, on reform, between Lord John Russell and Mr. Bright. The motion was to amend the reply to the speech by a clause as to the omission of that topic. Forty-six, in a thin house, voted for it.

SOURCE: George Mifflin Dallas, Diary of George Mifflin Dallas, While United States Minister to Russia 1837 to 1839, and to England 1856 to 1861, Volume 3, p. 433-4

Diary of George Mifflin Dallas, February 20, 1861

The day before yesterday the "Parliament of Italy" opened its first session at Turin. A great consummation! giving the noblest immortality to Victor Emmanuel and Cavour. The 18th of February must be marked with a white stone.

A levée at St. James's Palace. Anxious to receive my mail from home, I remained but five minutes after passing the Queen. Lord Clyde particularly cordial.

SOURCE: George Mifflin Dallas, Diary of George Mifflin Dallas, While United States Minister to Russia 1837 to 1839, and to England 1856 to 1861, Volume 3, p. 436

Diary of Gideon Welles: Tuesday, December 27, 1864

Mr. Seward sends me a letter from the British Chargé, stating her Majesty's desire to confer the Order of the Bath on Lieutenant Pearson¹ and desiring my opinions. I am opposed to the whole thing, and regret that our Minister should have pressed our naval officers to take any part in the fight with the Japanese. It appears to me to have been unnecessary to say the least, and this English compliment is designed to fasten us more closely with the allies against a people who have manifested more friendly feelings towards us than any Christian power. Mr. Thurlow Weed and Mr. Pruyn may be benefited. They have the money of the Japanese in their pockets.

At Cabinet to-day Seward, Fessenden, and Stanton were absent, the three most important of all who should be present at these meetings. The President was very pleasant over a bit of news in the Richmond papers, stating the fleet appeared off Fort Fisher, one gunboat got aground and was blown up. He thinks it is the powder vessel which has made a sensation. It will not surprise me if this is the fact. I have at no time had confidence in the expedient. But though the powder-boat may fail, I hope the expedition will not. It is to be regretted that Butler went with the expedition, for though possessed of ability as a civilian he has shown no very great military capacity for work like this. But he has Weitzel and if he will rely on him all may be well. I am apprehensive from what I have heard that too large a portion of the troops are black or colored, but fear there are too few of either kind, and no first-rate military officers to command and direct them. The Navy will, I think, do well. It is a new field for Porter, who has been amply supplied with men and boats.

_______________

¹ Lieut. Frederick Pearson, who commanded the United States ship in the fight of Sept. 5-8, 1864, with the Japanese.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 209-10

George Coppell to Major-General Benjamin F. Butler, May 8, 1862

BRITISH CONSULATE,                 

New Orleans, May 8, 1862.

Maj. Gen. BENJAMIN F. BUTLER, U. S..Army,

Commanding Department of the Gulf:

SIR: Mr. J. J. Burrowes, a British subject, and who lately commanded a company composed entirely of British subjects, organized to comply with the laws of this State, has informed me that, at your request and in compliance with an order from Brigadier-General Juge, he appeared before you yesterday for purposes which I shall have the honor to state in this communication, and he begs my interference in behalf of himself and of the other British subjects concerned. Mr. Burrowes states to me that you informed him that every member of the "British Guard" must report to you with uniforms and arms, and those failing to do so must leave this city within twenty-four hours or be sent to Fort Jackson. It has come to my knowledge within the past two days, and I am given to understand that you are in possession of information to the same effect, that some members, a minority of the whole, of the company of "British Guard," believing that the duty which had been imposed upon them by the law of this State was at an end and their services no longer required, a short time prior to the occupation of this city by the military authorities of the United States, sent their arms and equipments (their own private property, I believe) from the city—to whom or where Mr. Burrowes is unable to inform me. For this reason it will be impossible for them to report to you as soldiers, a character in which the British subjects now in question have never been desirous of showing themselves in the existing strife in this country.

It is not my intention in this communication to shield my countrymen in the step they have taken, for it may be construed as a breach of that neutrality imposed by Her Majesty on all of her subjects; but if it is looked upon in that light I feel convinced that they, when they took such action, were ignorant of the importance that might be attached to it, and did it with no idea of wrong or harm.

It may not, sir, be irrelevant for me to mention that I much regret to hear that the position of British subjects in this city as neutrals should have been questioned or doubted. When the militia law of this State was enforced by the authorities, requiring all men between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years who were in the State to perform militia duty, I was compelled to oppose the law, and informed the Executive of this State that the service imposed upon British subjects was contrary to the law of nations, and placed them beyond that neutral position which had been enjoined upon them by their Government. This was partly at the instance of many British subjects, and conjointly done with the consuls of seven other European Governments. In consequence of our action the U.S. authorities, on taking possession of this city, found that the city was to a great extent in the charge of the foreign corps, and they were performing a service allowed by their own Government, and one not deemed incompatible by either belligerent. Consequently, it is scarcely reasonable to suppose that after so strongly opposing the militia law, for fear of losing or violating their rights as British subjects, they would voluntarily and knowingly place themselves in that unpleasant position which they have for many months so carefully avoided. As I have had the honor to state above, and for the cause mentioned, it will not be possible for some of the British subjects, who were members of the "British Guard," to obey the verbal order of questioned legality given to Mr. Burrowes—that they should report to you as soldiers; and it would become my duty to solemnly protest in the name of Her Majesty's Government against the alternative stated by you, the enforcement of which would infringe the rights of British subjects residing in the United States.

I have the honor to be, sir, your most obedient servant,

GEORGE COPPELL,                       

Her Britannic Majesty's Acting Consul.

SOURCE: The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series III, Volume 2 (Serial No. 123), p. 124-5

Major-General Benjamin F. Butler to George Coppell, May 11, 1862

HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF THE GULF,                  

New Orleans, May 11, 1862.

GEORGE COPPELL,

Acting as Her Majesty's Consul, New Orleans:

SIR: I have your communication of May 8. With its evasions of facts I have nothing to do. A plain statement of the matter is this:

A number of residents of this city, who were enjoying the protection and advantages of the United States Government in their large trade and property for many years (some of them more than a decade), and now claiming to have been born subjects of Her Majesty Queen Victoria, organized themselves into a military body, known as the "British Guard," and armed, and uniformed, and equipped, patrolled the streets till the fleet of the United States had the city under its guns. This body then, after a discussion in presence of its captain and at least one other officer, at 11 o'clock at night, deliberately voted, in an organized meeting, to send the arms and uniforms of the company to the army of the rebel General Beauregard, which vote was carried into effect by sending to the rebels substantially all the arms, uniforms, and equipments in their armory. This transaction was concealed from me for some days. I then sent for Captain Burrowes and he acknowledged the facts materially as above stated. For this flagrant breach of the laws of nations, of the United States, your Queen's proclamation, and the laws of God, I directed him to order the company to leave the city within twenty-four hours.

To this he objected, saying, among other things, that this would be punishing the innocent with the guilty, as there were some members absent at the time of the vote; that each soldier of the Guard owned his arms and uniform as private property, and it would be hard to compel those to leave the city who still retained their arms and uniforms and did not concur in the vote. I then modified the order, directing those to report to me who still retained their arms and uniforms; all others, having forfeited all rights of neutrality and hospitality, to leave the city within twenty-four hours, or I should have them arrested and sent to Fort Jackson as dangerous and inimical persons. These people thought it of consequence that Beauregard should have sixty more uniforms and rifles. I thought it of the same consequence that he should have sixty more of these faithless men, who may fill them if they choose.

I intended this order to be strictly enforced. I am content for the present to suffer open enemies to remain in the city of their nativity, but law-defying and treacherous alien enemies shall not. I welcome all neutrals and foreigners who have kept aloof from these troubles which have been brought upon the city, and will, to the extent of my power, protect them and their property. They shall have the same hospitable and just treatment they have always received at the hands of the United States Government. They will see, however, for themselves that it is for the interest of all to have the unworthy among them rooted out, because the acts of such bring suspicion upon all. All the facts above set forth can most easily be substantiated, and indeed are so evasively admitted in your note by the very apology made for them. That apology says that these men when they took this action, &c., sent these arms and munitions of war to Beauregard, "did it with no idea of wrong or harm." I do not understand this. Can it be that such men, of age to enroll themselves as a military body, did not know that it is wrong to supply the enemies of the United States with arms? If so, I think they should be absent from the city long enough to learn so much international law; or do you mean to say that, "knowing their social proclivities and the lateness of the hour when the vote was taken," that therefore they were not responsible? There is another difficulty, however, in these people taking any protection under the British flag. The company received a charter or commission, or some form of rebel authorization from the Governor of Louisiana, and one of them whom I have under arrest accompanied him to the rebel camp.

There is still another difficulty, as I am informed and believe, that a majority of them have made declaration of their intentions to become citizens of the United States and of the supposed Confederate States, and have taken the proper and improper oaths of allegiance to effect that purpose.

Thus far you will do me the honor to observe that I have treated your communication as if it emanated from the duly authorized consul of Her Majesty's Government at this port. The respect I feel for that Government leads me to err, if at all, upon the side of recognition of all its claims and those of its officers, but I take leave to call your attention to the fact that you subscribed yourself "Her Britannic Majesty's Acting Consul," and that I have received no official information of any right which you may have so to act, except your acts alone, and pardon me if I err in saying that your acts in that behalf, which have come to my knowledge, have not been of such a character as to induce the belief on my part that you do rightfully represent that noble Government.

I have the honor to be, your obedient servant,

BENJ. F. BUTLER,              

Major-general, Commanding.

SOURCE: The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series III, Volume 2 (Serial No. 123), p. 126-7

George Coppell to Major-General Benjamin F. Butler, May 16, 1862

BRITISH CONSULATE,                 

New Orleans, May 16, 1862.

Maj. Gen. B. F. BUTLER,

Commanding Department of the Gulf:

SIR: Having been well assured that a British subject named Samuel Nelson has been by your orders arrested and sent to Fort Jackson without trial or proof of the charges which are said to have induced his arrest, and that evidence could be produced which would satisfactorily prove his innocence in the premises, in accordance with the notification contained in my communication to you of date the 8th instant, I have, acting as Her Britannic Majesty's consul, and in the name of Her Majesty's Government, most solemnly to protest against the arrest and confinement of the said Samuel Nelson in the manner set forth, and against all further and other acts done or to be done in violation of the rights of Her Britannic Majesty's subjects residing in the city of New Orleans.

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

GEORGE COPPELL,                       

Her Britannic Majesty's Acting Consul.

SOURCE: The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series III, Volume 2 (Serial No. 123), p. 128-9

Diary of William Howard Russell: July 11, 1861

The diplomatic circle is so totus teres atque rotundus, that few particles of dirt stick on its periphery from the road over which it travels. The radii are worked from different centres, often far apart, and the tires and naves often fly out in wide divergence; but for all social purposes is a circle, and a very pleasant one. When one sees M. de Stoeckle speaking to M. Mercier, or joining in with Baron Gerolt and M. de Lisboa, it is safer to infer that a little social reunion is at hand for a pleasant civilized discussion of ordinary topics, some music, a rubber, and a dinner, than to resolve with the New York Correspondent, “that there is reason to believe that a diplomatic movement of no ordinary significance is on foot, and that the Ministers of Russia, France, and Prussia have concerted a plan of action with the representative of Brazil, which must lead to extraordinary complications, in view of the temporary embarrassments which distract our beloved country. The Minister of England has held aloof from these reunions for a sinister purpose no doubt, and we have not failed to discover that the emissary of Austria, and the representative of Guatemala have abstained from taking part in these significant demonstrations. We tell the haughty nobleman who represents Queen Victoria, on whose son we so lately lavished the most liberal manifestations of our good will, to beware. The motives of the Court of Vienna, and of the Republic of Guatemala, in ordering their representatives not to join in the reunion which we observed at three o'clock to-day, at the corner of Seventeenth Street and One, are perfectly transparent; but we call on Mr. Seward instantly to demand of Lord Lyons a full and ample explanation of his conduct on the occasion, or the transmission of his papers. There is no harm in adding, that we have every reason to think our good ally of Russia, and the minister of the astute monarch, who is only watching an opportunity of leading a Franco-American army to the Tower of London and Dublin Castle, have already moved their respective Governments to act in the premises.”

That paragraph, with a good heading, would sell several thousands of the “New York Stabber” to-morrow.

SOURCE: William Howard Russell, My Diary North and South, Vol. 1, p. 401-2

Congressman Howell Cobb to Mary Ann Lamar Cobb, May 10, 1846

Washington City, 10th May, 1846.

My Dear Wife, . . . The city has been in great excitement since yesterday evening in consequence of the news we received from our Army in Texas. It is now settled that we are at war with Mexico, and on tomorrow the President is to send in to Congress a war message, and immediately legislation will be had for the prompt and energetic enforcement of our rights against Mexico. When the Union¹ of Monday night reaches you, you may expect to find an account of some pretty exciting scenes in Congress. At least that is the impression of those with whom I have talked (principally our own mess). I confess I do not feel so warlike myself. I prefer a foeman worthy of my steel. The reflection that we are so eager to avenge ourselves upon this poor, imbecile, self-distracted province, and at the same time sacrifice rights more “clear and unquestionable” to appease the threatened anger of her Brittanic Majesty, is to me humiliating in the extreme. However I will do my duty in both cases honestly and fearlessly, and trust the result to God and my country. The impression is beginning to be made upon the public mind here that this war with Mexico will render our negotiation with England more difficult and more doubtful of a pacific termination, as it is thought that English policy will be found to unite its interest with Mexican arms, — and thus we may after all the miserable pandering of American legislation to British arrogance, find ourselves engaged in war with England before the twelve months of notice shall have expired. All is speculation at present, and must continue so until the effect of what we have done shall be seen.

_______________

¹ Thomas Ritchie's newspnper, the Washington Union.

SOURCE: Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, Editor, The Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1911, Volume 2: The Correspondence of Robert Toombs, Alexander H. Stephens, and Howell Cobb, p. 76

Diary of 1st Lieutenant John S. Morgan: Saturday, June 24, 1865

To Bagdad a. m. for provision for mess, most of streets foot deep in water, return 11. A. M. attend Off’s call. Col sends communication from Capt Lacy, that the 33d would go home, orders would be issued immediately & to prepare the enc papers for muster out, go to Bagdad P. M. with nearly all the offs of Regt return at dark, parade this eve & two offs in the line. Genls Sheridan Steele Weitzel & Granger, pass up river for Brownville per steamer Heroine, (of Mobile), We await Genl Steeles return for transportation. The British ship Wolvernie fired a national salute at daybreak this morning in honor of the aniversity of the Queens Coronation, 2 Brigades of Nigs moved up to White Ranch last night

SOURCE: “Diary of John S. Morgan, Company G, 33rd Iowa Infantry,” Annals of Iowa, 3rd Series, Vol. 13, No. 8, April 1923, p. 606

Diary of 1st Lieutenant John S. Morgan: Tuesday, June 20, 1865

At 12 M. A salute by 2 English Men of War in honor of the Queens birthday. another schooner wrecked at the mouth of the Riogrande.

SOURCE: “Diary of John S. Morgan, Company G, 33rd Iowa Infantry,” Annals of Iowa, 3rd Series, Vol. 13, No. 8, April 1923, p. 606

Diary of John Hay: October 12, 1861

To-night the President went to Seward's, I with him. At the door a telegram was handed him from McClellan stating that the enemy was before him in force and would probably attack in the morning. “If they attack,” he added, “I shall beat them.” We went to Seward’s and talked of many things. Seward spoke of Lander’s restlessness and griefs at inaction; his offered resignation, and resolve to go West and begin again, — that watching the Potomac was not congenial, and other such. Gen. Scott was already fixing his orders for exactly the work he wanted to do.

Col. Scott came in with despatches from McCl., ordering Hooker’s Bladensburg Brigade in — one countermanding and one reaffirming. Scott then went out to order transportation for 6,000.

G. V. Fox came in and began to talk about the great expedition that is fitting at Annapolis. He wants, when they have sailed, to have 14,000 more men detached from the Army of the Potomac to be held in readiness awaiting the result of the expedition. If it causes a retreat of the rebels, then this additional force can be easily spared. The fleet will probably sail on Tuesday, and will have some work to do at Fernandina, Pensacola, Mobile. Gen'l Scott told Fox that 3,500 men would be enough to take Mobile, assisted by their ships. Fox himself seemed very confident that the expedition would succeed. His only nervousness was in relation to submarine batteries which modern science has rendered very destructive and entirely feasible.

Seward spoke also of Motley’s despatch which seems to contain a most cheering account of honest sympathy existing in the best class of English society towards us. Motley’s letter embraced free and cordial conversations with Earl Russell, Earl Grey, Cobden, Mr. Layard, Prince Albert and the Queen.

There was much talk of Daniel Webster, in which the financial sansouciism of the great man was strikingly prominent. Seward thought he would not live, nor Clay, a tithe as long as J. Q. Adams. The President disagreed with him, and thought Webster will be read forever.

SOURCES: Clara B. Hay, Letters of John Hay and Extracts from Diary, Volume 1, p. 42-4; Tyler Dennett, Lincoln and the Civil War in the Diaries and Letters of John Hay, p. 27-8.

William H. Seward to Charles Francis Adams, April 10, 1861

Department Of State,

Washington, April 10, 1861.

Sir: Although Great Britain and the United States possess adjacent dominions of large extent, and although they divide, not very unequally, a considerable portion of the commerce of the world, yet there are at present only two questions in debate between them. One of these concerns the line of boundary running through Puget's Sound, and involves the title to the island of San Juan. The other relates to a proposition for extinguishing the interest of the Hudson's Bay and Puget's Sound agricultural companies in the Territory of Washington. The discussion of these questions has hitherto been carried on here, and there is no necessity for removing it to London. It is expected to proceed amicably and result in satisfactory conclusions. It would seem, therefore, on first thought, that you would find nothing more to do in England than to observe and report current events, and to cultivate friendly sentiments there towards the United States. Nevertheless, the peculiar condition of our country in the present juncture renders these duties a task of considerable delicacy.

You will readily understand me as alluding to the attempts which are being made by a misguided portion of our fellow citizens to detach some of the States and to combine them in a now organization under the name of the Confederate States of America. The agitators in this bad enterprise, justly estimating the influence of the European powers upon even American affairs, do not mistake in supposing that it would derive signal advantage from a recognition by any of those powers, and especially Great Britain. Your task, therefore, apparently so simple and easy, involves the responsibility of preventing the commission of an act by the government of that country which would be fraught with disaster, perhaps ruin, to our own.

It is by no means easy to give you instructions. They must be based on a survey of the condition of the country, and include a statement of the policy of the government. The insurrectionary movement, though rapid in its progress, is slow in revealing its permanent character. Only outlines of a policy can be drawn which must largely depend on uncertain events.

The presidential election took place on the 6th of November last. The canvass had been conducted in all the southern or slave States in such a manner as to prevent a perfectly candid hearing there of the issue involved, and so all the parties existing there were surprised and disappointed in the marked result. That disappointment was quickly seized for desperate purposes by a class of persons until that time powerless, who had long cherished a design to dismember the Union and build up a new confederacy around the Gulf of Mexico. Ambitious leaders hurried the people forward, in a factious course, observing conventional forms but violating altogether the deliberative spirit of their constitutions. When the new federal administration came in on the 4th of March last, it found itself confronted by an insurrectionary combination of seven States, practicing an insidious strategy to seduce eight other States into its councils.

One needs to be as conversant with our federative system as perhaps only American publicists can be to understand how effectually, in the first instance, such a revolutionary movement must demoralize the general government. We are not only a nation, but we are States also. All public officers, as well as all citizens, owe not only allegiance to the Union but allegiance also to the States in which they reside. In the more discontented States the local magistrates and other officers cast off at once their federal allegiance, and conventions were held which assumed to absolve their citizens from the same obligation. Even federal judges, marshals, clerks, and revenue officers resigned their trusts. Intimidation deterred loyal persons from accepting the offices thus rendered vacant. So the most important faculties of the federal government in those States abruptly ceased. The resigning federal agents, if the expression may be used, attorned to the revolutionary authorities and delivered up to them public funds and other property and possessions of large value. The federal government had, through a long series of years, been engaged in building strong fortifications, a navy yard, arsenals, mints, treasuries, and other public edifices, not in any case for use against those States, but chiefly for their protection and convenience. These had been unsuspectingly left either altogether or imperfectly garrisoned or guarded, and they fell, with little resistance, into the hands of the revolutionary party. A general officer of the army gave up to them a large quantity of military stores and other property, disbanded the troops under his command, and sent them out of the territory of the disaffected States.

It may be stated, perhaps without giving just offence, that the most, popular motive in these discontents was an apprehension of designs on the part of the incoming federal administration hostile to the institution of domestic slavery in the States where it is tolerated by the local constitutions and laws. That institution and the class which especially cherishes it are not confined to the States which have revolted, but they exist in the eight other so-called slave States; and these, for that reason, sympathize profoundly with the revolutionary movement. Sympathies and apprehensions of this kind have, for an indefinite period, entered into the bases of political parties throughout the whole country, and thus considerable masses of persons, whose ultimate loyalty could not be doubted, were found, even in the free States, either justifying, excusing, or palliating the movement towards disunion in the seceding States. The party which was dominant in the federal government during the period of the last administration embraced, practically, and held in unreserved communion, all disunionists and sympathizers. It held the executive administration. The Secretaries of the Treasury, War, and the Interior were disunionists. The same party held a large majority of the Senate, and nearly equally divided the House of Representatives. Disaffection lurked, if it did not openly avow itself, in every department and in every bureau, in every regiment and in every ship-of-war; in the post office and in the custom-house, and in every legation and consulate from London to Calcutta. Of four thousand four hundred and seventy officers in the public service, civil and military, two thousand one hundred and fifty-four were representatives of States where the revolutionary movement was openly advocated and urged, even if not actually organized. Our system being so completely federative and representative, no provision had ever been made, perhaps none ever could have been made, to anticipate this strange and unprecedented disturbance. The people were shocked by successive and astounding developments of what the statute book distinctly pronounced to be sedition and treason, but the magistracy was demoralized and the laws were powerless. By degrees, however, a better sentiment revealed itself. The executive administration hesitatingly, in part, reformed itself. The capital was garrisoned; the new President came in unresisted, and soon constituted a new and purely loyal administration. They found the disunionists perseveringly engaged in raising armies and laying sieges around national fortifications situate within the territory of the disaffected States. The federal marine seemed to have been scattered everywhere except where its presence was necessary, and such of the military forces as were not in the remote States and Territories were held back from activity by vague and mysterious armistices which bad been informally contracted by the late President, or under his authority, with a view to postpone conflict until impracticable concessions to disunion should be made by Congress, or at least until the waning term of his administration should reach its appointed end. Commissioners who had been sent by the new confederacy were already at the capital demanding recognition of its sovereignty and a partition of the national property and domain. The treasury, depleted by robbery and peculation, was exhausted, and the public credit was prostrate.

It would be very unjust to the American people to suppose that this singular and unhappy condition of things indicated any extreme favor or toleration of the purpose of a permanent dissolution of the Union. On the contrary, disunion at the very first took on a specious form, and it afterwards made its way by ingenious and seductive devices. It inculcated that the Union is a purely voluntary connexion, founded on the revocable assent of the several States; that secession, in the case of great popular discontent, would induce consultation and reconciliation, and so that revolution, instead of being war, is peace, and disunion, instead of being dissolution, is union. Though the ordinances of secession in the seceding States were carried through impetuously, without deliberation, and even by questionable majorities, yet it was plausibly urged that the citizens who had remained loyal to the Union might wisely acquiesce, so as ultimately to moderate and control the movement, and in any event that if war should ensue, it would become a war of sections, and not a social war, of all others, and especially in those States, the form of war most seriously to be deprecated. It being assumed that peaceful separation is in harmony with the Constitution, it was urged as a consequence that coercion would, therefore, be unlawful and tyrannical; and this principle was even pushed so far as to make the defensive retaining by the federal government of its position within the limits of the seceding States, or where it might seem to overawe or intimidate them, an act of such forbidden coercion. Thus it happened that for a long time, and in very extensive districts even, fidelity to the Union manifested itself by demanding a surrender of its powers and possessions, and compromises with or immunity towards those who were engaged in overthrowing it by armed force. Disunion under these circumstances rapidly matured. On the other hand, the country was bewildered. For the moment even loyal citizens fell naturally into the error of inquiring how the fearful state of things had come about, and who was responsible for it, thus inviting a continuance of the controversy out of which it had arisen, rather than rallying to the duty of arresting it. Disunion, sustained only by passion, made haste to attain its end. Union, on the contrary, required time, because it could only appeal to reason, and reason could not be heard until excitement should in some degree subside. Military spirit is an element always ready for revolution. It has a fuller development in the disaffected than in the loyal States. Thousands of men have already banded themselves as soldiers in the cause of disunion, while the defenders of the Union, before resorting to arms, everywhere wait to make sure that it cannot be otherwise preserved. Even this cautious and pacific, yet patriotic disposition has been misunderstood and perverted by faction to encourage disunion.

I believe that I have thus presented the disunion movement dispassionately and without misrepresenting its proportions or its character.

You will hardly be asked by responsible statesmen abroad why has not the new administration already suppressed the revolution. Thirty-five days are a short period in which to repress, chiefly by moral means, a movement which is so active while disclosing itself throughout an empire.

You will not be expected to promulgate this history, or to communicate it to the British government, but you are entitled to the President's views, which I have thus set forth in order to enable you to understand the policy which he proposes to pursue, and to conform your own action to it.

The President neither looks for nor apprehends any actual and permanent dismemberment of the American Union, especially by a line of latitude. The improvement of our many channels of intercourse, and the perfection of our scheme of internal exchanges, and the incorporation of both of them into a great system of foreign commerce, concurring with the gradual abatement of the force of the only existing cause of alienation, have carried us already beyond the danger of disunion in that form. The so-called Confederate States, therefore, in the opinion of the President, are attempting what will prove a physical impossibility. Necessarily they build the structure of their new government upon the same principle by which they seek to destroy the Union, namely, the right of each individual member of the confederacy to withdraw from it at pleasure and in peace. A government thus constituted could neither attain the consolidation necessary for stability, nor guaranty any engagements it might make with creditors or other nations. The movement, therefore, in the opinion of the President, tends directly to anarchy in the seceding States, as similar movements in similar circumstances have already resulted in Spanish America, and especially in Mexico. He believes, nevertheless, that the citizens of those States, as well as the citizens of the other States, are too intelligent, considerate, and wise to follow the leaders to that disastrous end. For these reasons he would not be disposed to reject a cardinal dogma of theirs, namely, that the federal government could not reduce the seceding States to obedience by conquest, even although he were disposed to question that proposition. But, in fact, the President willingly accepts it as true. Only an imperial or despotic government could subjugate thoroughly disaffected and insurrectionary members of the State. This federal republican system of ours is of all forms of government the very one which is most unfitted for such a labor. Happily, however, this is only an imaginary defect. The system has within itself adequate, peaceful, conservative, and recuperative forces. Firmness on the part of the government in maintaining and preserving the public institutions and property, and in executing the laws where authority can be exercised without waging war, combined with such measures of justice, moderation, and forbearance as will disarm reasoning opposition, will be sufficient to secure the public safety until returning reflection, concurring with the fearful experience of social evils, the inevitable fruits of faction, shall bring the recusant members cheerfully back into the family, which, after all, must prove their best and happiest, as it undeniably is their most natural home. The Constitution of the United States provides for that return by authorizing Congress, on application to be made by a certain majority of the States, to assemble a national convention, in which the organic law can, if it be needful, be revised so as to remove all real obstacles to a reunion, so suitable to the habits of the people, and so eminently conducive to the common safety and welfare.

Keeping that remedy steadily in view, the President, on the one hand, will not suffer the federal authority to fall into abeyance, nor will he, on the other, aggravate existing evils by attempts at coercion which must assume the form of direct war against any of the revolutionary States. If, while he is pursuing this course, commended as it is by prudence as well as patriotism, the scourge of civil war for the first time in our history must fall upon our country during the term of his administration, that calamity will then have come through the agency, not of the government, but of those who shall have chosen to be its armed, open, and irreconcilable enemies; and he will not suffer himself to doubt that when the value of the imperilled Union shall be brought in that fearful manner home to the business and the bosoms of the American people, they will, with an unanimity that shall vindicate their wisdom and their virtue, rise up and save it.

It does not, however, at all surprise the President that the confidence in the stability of the Union, which has been heretofore so universally entertained, has been violently shocked both at home and abroad. Surprise and fear invariably go together. The period of four months which intervened between the election which designated the head of the new administration and its advent, as has already been shown, assumed the character of an interregnum, in which not only were the powers of the government paralyzed, but even its resources seemed to disappear and be forgotten.

Nevertheless, all the world know what are the resources of the United States, and that they are practically unencumbered as well as inexhaustible. It would be easy, if it would not seem invidious, to show that whatever may be the full development of the disunion movement, those resources will not be seriously diminished, and that the revenues and credit of the Union, unsurpassed in any other country, are adequate to every emergency that can occur in our own. Nor will the political commotions which await us sensibly disturb the confidence of the people in the stability of the government. It has been necessary for us to learn, perhaps the instruction has not come too soon, that vicissitudes are incident to our system and our country, as they are to all others. The panic which that instruction naturally produced is nearly past. What has hitherto been most needful for the reinvigoration of authority is already occurring. The aiders, abettors, and sympathizers with disunion, partly by their own choice and partly through the exercise of the public will, are falling out from the civil departments of the government as well as from the army and the navy. The national legislature will no longer be a distracted council. Our representatives in foreign courts and ports will henceforth speak only the language of loyalty to their country, and of confidence in its institutions and its destiny.

It is much to be deplored that our representatives are to meet abroad agents of disunion, seeking foreign aid to effect what, unaided, is already seen to be desperate. You need not be informed that their success in Great Britain would probably render their success easy elsewhere. The President does not doubt that you fully appreciate the responsibility of your mission. An honored ancestor of yours was the first to represent your whole country, after its independence was established, at the same court to which you now are accredited. The President feels assured that it will happen through no want of loyalty or of diligence on your part if you are to be the last to discharge that trust. You will have this great advantage, that from the hour when that country, so dear to us all, first challenged the notice of nations, until now, it has continually grown in their sympathy and reverence.

Before considering the arguments you are to use, it is important to [indicate] those which you are not to employ in executing that mission:

First. The President has noticed, as the whole American people have, with much emotion, the expressions of good will and friendship toward the United States, and of concern for their present embarrassments, which have been made on apt occasions by her Majesty and her ministers. You will make due acknowledgment for these manifestations, but at the same time you will not rely on any mere sympathies or national kindness. You will make no admissions of weakness in our Constitution, or of apprehension on the part of the government. You will rather prove, as you easily can, by comparing the history of our country with that of other states, that its Constitution and government are really the strongest and surest which have ever been erected for the safety of any people. You will in no case listen to any suggestions of compromise by this government, under foreign auspices, with its discontented citizens. If, as the President does not at all apprehend, you shall unhappily find her Majesty's government tolerating the application of the so-called seceding States, or wavering about it, you will not leave them to suppose for a moment that they can grant that application and remain the friends of the United States. You may even assure them promptly in that case that if they determine to recognize, they may at the same time prepare to enter into alliance with the enemies of this republic. You alone will represent your country at London, and you will represent the whole of it there. When you are asked to divide that duty with others, diplomatic relations between the government of Great Britain and this government will be suspended, and will remain so until it shall be seen which of the two is most strongly entrenched in the confidence of their respective nations and of mankind.

You will not be allowed, however, even if you were disposed, as the President is sure you will not be, to rest your opposition to the application of the Confederate States on the ground of any favor this administration, or the party which chiefly called it into existence, proposes to show to Great Britain, or claims that Great Britain ought to show to them. You will not consent to draw into debate before the British government any opposing moral principles which may be supposed to lie at the foundation of the controversy between those States and the federal Union

You will indulge in no expressions of harshness or disrespect, or even impatience, concerning the seceding States, their agents, or their people. But you will, on the contrary, all the while remember that those States are now, as they always heretofore have been, and, notwithstanding their temporary self-delusion, they must always continue to be, equal and honored members of this federal Union, and that their citizens throughout all political misunderstandings and alienations still are and always must be our kindred and countrymen. In short, all your arguments must belong to one of three classes, namely: First. Arguments drawn from the principles of public law and natural justice, which regulate the intercourse of equal States. Secondly. Arguments which concern equally the honor, welfare, and happiness of the discontented States, and the honor, welfare, and happiness of the whole Union. Thirdly. Arguments which are equally conservative of the rights and interests, and even sentiments of the United States, and just in their bearing upon the rights, interests, and sentiments of Great Britain and all other nations.

We freely admit that a nation may, and even ought, to recognize a new State which has absolutely and beyond question effected its independence, and permanently established its sovereignty; and that a recognition in such a case affords no just cause of offence to the government of the country from which the new State has so detached itself. On the other hand, we insist that a nation that recognizes a revolutionary State, with a view to aid its effecting its sovereignty and independence, commits a great wrong against the nation whose integrity is thus invaded, and makes itself responsible for a just and ample redress.

I will not stop to inquire whether it may not sometimes happen that an imperial government or even a federative one may not so oppress or aggrieve its subjects in a province or in a State as to justify intervention on the plea of humanity. Her Majesty's government, however, will not make a pretence that the present is such a case. The United States have existed under their present form of government seventy and more years, and during all that time not one human life has been taken in forfeiture for resistance to their authority. It must be the verdict of history that no government so just, so equal, and so humane, has ever elsewhere existed. Even the present disunion movement is confessedly without any better cause than an apprehension of dangers which, from the very nature of the government, are impossible; and speculations of aggressions, which those who know the physical and social arrangements of this continent must see at once are fallacious and chimerical.

The disunionists will, I am sure, take no such ground. They will appeal, not to the justice, or to the magnanimity, but to the cupidity and caprice of Great Britain.

It cannot need many words to show that even in that form their appeal ought to be promptly dismissed. I am aware that the revenue law lately passed by Congress is vehemently denounced in Great Britain. It might be enough to say on that subject that as the United States and Great Britain are equals in dignity, and not unequal in astuteness in the science and practice of political economy, the former have good right to regard only their own convenience, and consult their own judgment in framing their revenue laws. But there are some points in this connexion which you may make without compromising the self-respect of this government.

In the circumstances of the present case, it is clear that a recognition of the so-called Confederate nations must be deemed equivalent to a deliberate resolution by her Majesty's government that this American Union, which has so long constituted a sovereign nation, shall be now permanently dissolved, and cease to exist forever. The excuse for this resolution, fraught, if effectual, with fearful and enduring consequences, is a change in its revenue laws — a change which, because of its very nature, as well as by reason of the ever-changing course of public sentiment, must necessarily be temporary and ephemeral. British censors tell us that the new tariff is unwise for ourselves. If so, it will speedily be repealed. They say it is illiberal and injurious to Great Britain. It cannot be so upon her principles without being also injurious to ourselves, and in that case it will be promptly repealed. Besides, there certainly are other and more friendly remedies for foreign legislation that is injurious without premeditated purpose of injury, which a magnanimous government will try before it deliberately seeks the destruction of the offended nation.

The application of the so-called Confederate States, in the aspect now under consideration, assumes that they are offering, or will offer, more liberal commercial facilities than the United States can or will be disposed to concede. Would it not be wise for Great Britain to wait until those liberal facilities shall be definitely fixed and offered by the Confederate States, and then to wait further and see whether the United States may not accord facilities not less desirable?

The union of these States seventy years ago established perfectly free trade between the several States, and this, in effect, is free trade throughout the largest inhabitable part of North America. During all, that time, with occasional and very brief intervals, not affecting the result, we have been constantly increasing in commercial liberality towards foreign nations. We have made that advance necessarily, because, with increasing liberality, we have at the same time, owing to controlling causes, continually augmented our revenues and increased our own productions. The sagacity of the British government cannot allow it to doubt that our natural course hereafter in this respect must continue to be the same as heretofore.

The same sagacity may be trusted to decide, first, whether the so-called Confederate States, on the emergency of a military revolution, and having no other sources of revenue than duties on imports and exports levied within the few ports they can command without a naval force, are likely to be able to persevere in practicing the commercial liberality they proffer as an equivalent for recognition. Manifestly, moreover, the negotiation which they propose to open with Great Britain implies that peace is to be preserved while the new commerce goes on. The sagacity of her Majesty's government may be trusted to consider whether that new government is likely to be inaugurated without war, and whether the commerce of Great Britain with this country would be likely to be improved by flagrant war between the southern and northern States.

Again, even a very limited examination of commercial statistics will be sufficient to show that while the staples of the disaffected States do, indeed, as they claim, constitute a very important portion of the exports of the United States to European countries, a very large portion of the products and fabrics of other regions consumed in those States are derived, and must continue to be derived, not from Europe, but from the northern States, while the chief consumption of European productions and fabrics imported into the United States takes place in these same States. Great Britain may, if her government think best, by modifying her navigation laws, try to change these great features of American commerce; but it will require something more than acts of the British Parliament and of the proposed revolutionary Congress to modify a commerce that takes its composite character from all the various soils and climates of a continent, as well as from the diversified institutions, customs and dispositions of the many communities which inhabit it.

Once more: All the speculations which assume that the revenue law recently passed by Congress will diminish the consumption of foreign fabrics and productions in the United States are entirely erroneous. The American people are active, industrious, inventive, and energetic, but they are not penurious or sordid. They are engaged with wonderful effect in developing the mineral, forest, agricultural and pastoral resources of a vast and, practically, new continent. Their wealth, individual as well as public, increases every day in a general sense, irrespective of the revenue laws of the United States, and every day also the habit of liberal — not to say profuse — expenditure grows upon them. There are changes in the nature and character of imported productions which they consume, but practically no decline in the quantity and value of imports.

It remains to bring out distinctly a consideration to which I have already adverted. Great Britain has within the last forty-five years changed character and purpose. She has become a power for production, rather than a power for destruction. She is committed, as it seems to us, to a policy of industry, not of ambition; a policy of peace, not of war. One has only to compare her present domestic condition with that of any former period to see that this new career on which she has entered is as wise as it is humane and beneficent. Her success in this career requires peace throughout the civilized world, and nowhere so much as on this continent. Recognition by her of the so-called Confederate States would be intervention and war in this country. Permanent dismemberment of the American Union in consequence of that intervention would be perpetual war — civil war. The new confederacy which in that case Great Britain would have aided into existence must, like any other new state, seek to expand itself northward, westward, and southward. What part of this continent or of the adjacent islands would be expected to remain in peace?

The President would regard it as inconsistent with his habitually high consideration for the government and people of Great Britain to allow me to dwell longer on the merely commercial aspects of the question under discussion. Indeed he will not for a moment believe that, upon consideration of merely financial gain, that government could be induced to lend its aid to a revolution designed to overthrow the institutions of this country, and involving ultimately the destruction of the liberties of the American people.

To recognize the independence of a new state, and so favor, possibly determine, its admission into the family of nations, is the highest possible exercise of sovereign power, because it affects in any case the welfare of two nations, and often the peace of the world. In the European system this power is now seldom attempted to be exercised without invoking a consultation or congress of nations. That system has not been extended to this continent. But there is even a greater necessity for prudence in such cases in regard to American States than in regard to the nations of Europe. A revolutionary change of dynasty or even a disorganization and recombination of one or many States, therefore, do not long or deeply affect the general interests of society, because the ways of trade and habits of society remain the same. But a radical change effected in the political combinations existing on the continent, followed, as it probably would be, by moral convulsions of incalculable magnitude, would threaten the stability of society throughout the world.

Humanity has indeed little to hope for if it shall, in this age of high improvement, be decided without a trial that the principle of international law which regards nations as moral persons, bound so to act as to do to each other the least injury and the most good, is merely an abstraction too refined to be reduced into practice by the enlightened nations of Western Europe. Seen in the light of this principle, the several nations of the earth constitute one great federal republic. When one of them casts its suffrages for the admission of a new member into that republic, it ought to act under a profound sense of moral obligation, and be governed by considerations as pure, disinterested, and elevated as the general interest of society and the advancement of human nature.

The British empire itself is an aggregation of divers communities which cover a large portion of the earth and embrace one-fifth of its entire population. Some, at least, of these communities are held to their places in that system by bonds as fragile as the obligations of our own federal Union. The strain will some time come which is to try the strength of these bonds, though it will be of a different kind from that which is trying the cords of our confederation. Would it be wise for her Majesty's government, on this occasion, to set a dangerous precedent, or provoke retaliation? If Scotland and Ireland are at last reduced to quiet contentment, has Great Britain no dependency, island, or province left exposed along the whole circle of her empire, from Gibraltar through the West Indies and Canada till it begins again on the southern extremity of Africa?

The President will not dwell on the pleasing recollection that Great Britain, not yet a year ago, manifested by marked attention to the United States her desire for a cordial reunion which, all ancient prejudices and passions being buried, should be a pledge of mutual interest and sympathy forever thereafter. The United States are not indifferent to the circumstances of common descent, language, customs, sentiments, and religion, which recommend a closer sympathy between themselves and Great Britain than either might expect in its intercourse with any other nation. The United States are one of many nations which have sprung from Great Britain herself. Other such nations are rising up in various parts of the globe. It has been thought by many who have studied the philosophy of modern history profoundly, that the success of the nations thus deriving their descent from Great Britain might, through many ages, reflect back upon that kingdom the proper glories of its own great career. The government and people of Great Britain may mistake their commercial interests, but they cannot become either unnatural or indifferent to the impulses of an undying ambition to be distinguished as the leaders of the nations in the ways of civilization and humanity.

I am, sir, respectfully, your obedient servant,

WILLIAM H. SEWARD.

SOURCE: Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1861, Message of the President of the United States and Accompanying Documents, from the Department of State, p. 71-80