niiyhiwifTiiwHi

YaleUiii»ersityLibfaf)f

39002014035662

Cc5
700b

OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS:
SHOWING
PEESENT PERILS FROM ENGLAND AND FRANCE; THE NATURE AND
CONDITIONS OF INTERVENTION BY MEDIATION; AND ALSO BY
RECOGNITION; THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF ANY RECOGNITION
OF A NEW POWER WITH SLAVERY AS A CORNER
STONE ; AND THE WRONGFUL CONCESSION
OF OCEAN BELLIGERENCY.

SPEECH

HON. CHARLES SUMNER,

EEFOEE THE

CITIZENS OF NEW YORK, AT THE COOPER INSTITUTE,

SEPT. 10, 1863.

BOSTON:
WRIGHT & POTTER, PRINTERS, 4 SPRING LANE.
1863.

SPEECH.

Fellow-Citizens, — Prom the beginning of the war in which we
are now engaged, the public interest has alternated anxiously
between the current of events at home and the more distant
current abroad. Foreign Relations have been hardly less absorb
ing than Domestic Relations. At times the latter have seemed
to wait upon the former, and a packet from Europe has been like
a messenger from the seat of war. Rumors of Foreign Interven
tion are constant, now in the form of Mediation, and now in the
form of Recognition ; and more than once the country has been
summoned to confront the idea of England, and of Prance too,
in open combination with Rebel Slave-mongers battling, in the
name of Slavery, to build an infamous Power on the destruction
of this Republic.
It may be well for us to turn aside from battle and siege here
at home — from the blazing lines of Gettysburg, Vicksburg and
Charleston — to glance for a moment at the perils from abroad ; of
course I mean from England and France, for these are the only
Poreign Powers that thus far have been moved to intermeddle on
the side of Slavery. The subject to which I now invite attention
may not have the attraction of waving standards or victorious
marches, but, more than any conflict of arms, it concerns the Civil
ization of the age. If Foreign Powers can justly interfere against
Human Freedom, this Republic will not be the only sufferer.
There is always a natural order in unfolding a subject, and I
shall try to pursue it on this occasion, under the following heads ;
First — The perils to our country from Foreign Powers, especially
as foreshadowed in the unexpected and persistent conduct of
England and France since the outbreak of the war.
Secondly — The nature of Foreign Intervention by Mediation,
with the principles applicable thereto, as illustrated by historic
instances — showing especially how England, by her conspicuous,
wide-spread and most determined Intervention to promote the
extinction of African Slavery, is irrevocably commilted against
any act or policy that can encourage this criminal pretension.
Thirdly — The nature of Foreign Intervention by Recognition,
with the principles applicable thereto, as illustrated by historic

instances — showing that by the practice of nations, and especially
by the declared sentiments of British Statesmen, there can be no
Foreign Recognition of an insurgent Power where the contest for
Independence is still pending.
Fourthly — The moral impossibility of Foreign Recognition, even
if the pretended Power be de facto Independent, where it is com
posed of Rebel Slave-mongers seeking to found a neiv Power with
Slavery for its declared " corner-stone." Pardon the truthful
plainness of the terms which I employ. I am to speak not
merely of Slave-holders ; but of people to whom Slavery is a
passion and a business — therefore Slave-mongers ; now in Rebel
lion for the sake of Slavery — therefore Rebel Slave-mongers.
Fifthly — The absurdity and wrong of conceding Ocean Bellig
erency to a pretended Power, which, in the first place, is without
a Prize Court — so that it cannot be an Ocean Belligerent in fact —
and which, in the second place, even if Ocean Belligerent in fact,
is of such an odious character, that its Recognition is a moral
impossibility. From this review, touching upon the present and the past ;
leaning upon history and upon law ; enlightened always by prin
ciples which are an unerring guide, our conclusion will be easy.
Perils from Foreign Powers.
The perils to our country, as foreshadowed in the action of
Poreign Powers since the outbreak of the war, first invite our
attention. There is something in. the tendencies of nations, which
must not be neglected. Like individuals, nations influence
each other ; like tho heavenly bodies, they may be disturbed by
each otlier in their appointed orbits. This is apparent even in
peace ; but it becomes more apparent in the convulsions of war,
sometimes from the withdrawal of customary forces and some
times from their increased momentum. It is the nature of war
to enlarge as it continues. Beginning between two nations, it
gradually widens its circle, sucking other nations into its fiery
maelstrom. Such is human history. Nor is it different, if the
war be for Independence. Foreign Powers may for a while keep
out of the conflict ; but the examples of history show how difiicult
this has been.
The Seven United Provinces of Holland, under that illustrious
character, William of Orange, the predecessor and exemplar of
our Washington, rose against the dominion of Spain, upheld by
the bigotry of Philip II., and the barbarity of his representative,
Alva ; but the conflict, though at first limited to the two parties,
was not slow to engage Queen Elizabeth, who lent to this war of
Independence the name of her favorite Leicester and the undying

heroism of Sidney, while Spain retorted by the Armada. The
United Provinces of Holland, in their struggle for Independence,
were the prototype of the United States of America, which I need
not remind you, drew into their contest the arms of France,
Spain, and Holland. In the rising of the Spanish Colonies
which followed, there was less interposition of other nations,
doubtless from the distant and outlying position of these Colonies,
although they were not beyond the ambitious reach of the Holy
Alliance, whose purposes with regard to them were so far thwarted
by Mr. Canning, backed by the declaration of Mr. Munroe — known
as the Munroe doctrine — that the British Statesman felt authorized
to boast that he had called a New World into existence to redress
the balance of the Old. Then came the struggle for Greek Inde
pendence, which, after a conflict of several years, darkened by
massacre, but relieved by an exalted self-sacrifice, shining with
names like Byron and Bozzaris, that cannot die, at length chal
lenged the powerful interposition of England, France and Russia.
The Independence of Greece was hardly acknowledged, when
Belgium, renouncing the rule of the Netherlands, claimed hers
also, and here again the Great Powers of Europe were drawn into
the contest. Then came the efibrt of Hungary, inspired by
Kossuth, which, when about to prevail, aroused the armies of
Russia. There was also the contemporaneous effort of the Roman
Republic, under Mazzini, which when about to prevail, aroused
the bayonets of France. And lastly we have only recently
witnessed the resurrection of Italy, inspired by Garibaldi, and
directed 'by Cavour; but it was not accomplished until Louis
Napoleon, with his well-trained legions, carried the imperial
eagles into the battle.
Such are famous instances, which are now so many warnings.
Ponder them and you will see the tendency, the temptation, the
irresistible fascination, or the commanding exigency under which,
in times past, Foreign Nations have been led to take part in con
flicts for Independence. • I do not dwell now on the character of
these various interventions, although they have been mostly in the
interest of Human Freedom. It is only as examples to put us
on our guard that I now adduce them; The footprints all seem
to lead one way.
But even our war is not without its warnings. If thus far in
its progress other nations have not intervened, they have not
succeeded in keeping entirely aloof. The foreign trumpet has
not soxinded yet ; but more tlian once the cry has come that we
should soon hear it, while incidents have too often occurred,
exhibiting an abnormal watchfulness of our affairs and an uncon
trollable passion or purpose to intermeddle in them, with signs of
unfriendly feeling. Of course, this is applicable especially, if not
exclusively, to England and France.

6
Perils from England,
(1.) There is one act of the British Cabinet which stands fore
most as an omen of peril — foremost in time — foremost also in the
magnitude of its consequences. Though plausible in form, it is
none the less injurious or unjustifiable. Of course, I refer to that
inconsiderate Proclamation in the name of the Queen, as early ks
May, 1861, which, after raising Rebel Slave-mongers to an equality
with the National Government in Belligerent Rights, solemnly
declares " neutrality " between the two equal parlies ; — as if the
declaration of equality was not an insult to the National Govern
ment, and the declaration of neutrality was not a moral absurdity,
off'ensive to reason and all those precedents which make the
glory of the British name. Even if the Proclamation could be
otherwise than improper at any time in such a Rebellion, it was
worse than a blunder at that early date. The apparent relations
between the two Powers were more than friendly. Only a
few months before, the youthful heir to the British throne
had been welcomed every whore throughout the United States
— except in Richmond — as in the land of kinsmen. And yet
— immediately after the tidings of the rebel assault on Fort
Sumter — before the National Government had begun to put
forth its strength — and even without waiting for the arrival of
our newly-appointed Minister, who was known to be at Liver
pool on his way to London, the Proclamation was suddenly
launched. I doubt if any well-informed person, who has read
Mr. Dallas's despatch of 2d May, 1861, recounting a conversation
with the British Minister, will undertake to vindicate it in point
of time. Clearly the alacrity of this concession was unhappy, for
it bore an air of defiance or at least of heartlessness towards an
ally of kindred blood engaged in the maintenance of its tradi
tional power against an infamous pretension. But it was more
unhappy still, that the good genius of England did not save this
historic nation, linked with so many triumphs of freedom, from
a fatal step, which, under the guise of " neutrality," was a
betrayal of civilization itself.
It is diificult to exaggerate the consequences of this, precipitate,
unfriendly and immoral concession, which has been and still is
an overflowing fountain of mischief and bloodshed — hac fonte
derivata clades ; — -first, in what it vouchsafes to Rebel Slave-
mongers on sea and in British ports, and secondly, in the impedi
ments which it takes from British subjects ready to make money
out of Slavery ; — all of which has been declared by undoubted
British authority. Lord Chelmsford — of professional renown as
Sir Frederick Thesiger — now an Ex-Chancellor — used these words
recently in the House of Lords ; " If the Southern Confederacy
had not been recognized as a belligerent Power, he agreed with
his noble and learned friend [Lord Brougham] that, under these
circumstances, if any Englishman were to fit out a privateer for

the purpose of assisting the Southern States against the Northern
States, he would be guilty of piracy," — But all this was changed
by the Queen's Proclamation. For the Rebel Slave-monger there
is the recognition of his flag ; for the British subject there is the
opportunity of trade. For the Rebel Slave-monger there is fellow
ship and equality ; for the British subject there is a new customer,
to whom he may lawfully sell Armstrong guns and other warlike
munitions of choicest British workmanship, and, as Lord Palmers-
ton tells us, even ships of war too, to be used in behalf of Slavery,
What was unlawful is suddenly made lawful, while the ban is
taken frora an odious felony. It seems almost superfluous
to add, that such a concession, thus potent in its reach, must
have been a direct encouragement and overture to the Rebel
lion. Slavery itself was exalted when barbarous pretenders —
battling to found a new Power in its hateful name — without so
much as a single port on the ocean where a prize could be
carried for condemnation — were yet, in the face of this essential
deficiency, swiftly acknowledged as ocean belligerents, while,
as a consequence, their pirate ships, cruising for plunder in
behalf of Slavery, were acknowledged as National ships, entitled
to equal privileges with the National ships of the United States.
also for the building of ships, to be used in behalf of Slavery,
This simple statement is enough. It is vain to say, that such a
concession was a " necessity." There may have been a strong
temptation to it, constituting, perhaps, an imagined necessity, as
with many persons there is a strong temptation to Slavery itself.
But such a concession to Slave-mongers, fighting for Slavery, can
be vindicated only as Slavery is vindicated. As well undertake
to declare " neutrality " between Right and Wrong — between
Good and Evil — with a concession to the latter of Belligerent
Rights ; and then set up the apology of " necessity."
(2.) It was natural that an act so essentially unfriendly in
character and also in the alacrity with which it was done, should
create throughout England an unfriendly sentiment towards us,
easily stimulated to a menace of war. And this menace was not
wanting soon afterwards, when the two rebel emissaries on board
the Trent were seized by a patriotic, brave commander, whose high
est fault was, that, in the absence of instructions from his own Gov
ernment, he followed too closely British precedents. This accident
— for such it was and nothing else — was misrepresented, and, with
an utterly indefensible exaggeration, was changed by the British
nation, backed by the British Government, into a casus belli, as if
such an unauthorized incident, which obviously involved no ques
tion of self-defence, could justify war between two civilized Nations.
And yet, in the face of a positive declaration from the United States,
that it was an accident, the British Government made preparations
to take part with rebel slave-mongers, and it fitly began such ignoble
preparations by keeping back from the British people, the official

8
despatch of SOth November, 1861, where our Government, after
announcing that Capt. Wilkes had acted " without any instruc
tions," expressed a trust that " the British Government would con
sider the subject in a friendly temper," and promised " the best
disposition on' our part." It is painful to recall these things. But
they now belong to history, and we cannot forget the lesson they
teach. (3.) But this tendency to espouse the side of Slavery, appears
in small things, as well as great, becoming more marked in
proportion to the inconsistency involved. Thus, for instance,
where two British subjects " suspected " of participation in the
Rebellion were detained in a military prison, without the benefit
of habeas corpus, the British Minister at Washington was directed
by Her Majesty's Government to complain of their detention as
an infraction of the Constitution of the United States, of which this
intermeddling Power assumed for the time to be the " expounder ;"
and the case was accordingly presented on this ground. But
the British cabinet, in . its instinctive aptness to mix in our
war, if only by diplomatic notes, seemed to have forgotten the
British Constitution, under which, in 1848, with the consent of
the leaders of all parties, — Brougham and Derby, Peele and
D'Israeli, — the habeas corpus was suspended in Ireland and the
Government was authorized to apprehend and detain " such
persons as they shall suspect." The bill sanctioning this exercise
of power went through all its stages in the House of Commons in
one day, and on the next day it went through all its stages in the
House of Lords, passing to be a law without a dissenting vote.
It will hardly be believed that Lord Russell, who now complains
of our detention of " suspected " persons, as an infraction of the
Constitution of the United States, was the Minister who intro
duced this Bill, and that, on that occasion he u^sed these words :
" I believe in my conscience that this measure is calculated to
prevent insurrection, to preserve internal peace, to preserve the
unity of this empire and to save the throne of these realms and
the free institutions of this country."
(4.) The complaint about the habeas corpus was hardly
answered when another was solemnly presented, on account of the
effort to complete the blockade of Charleston, by sinking at
its mouth ships laden with stone, usually known as the " stone
blockade." In common times her Majesty's government would
have shrunk from any intermeddling here. It could not have
forgotten that history, early and late, and especially English
history, abounds in similar incidents ; that as long ago as 1456,
at the siege of Calais by the Duke of Burgundy, and also in 1628
at the niemorable siege of Rochelle by Cardinal Richelieu, ships
laden with stone were sunk in the harbor ; that during the war
of the Revolution in 1778 six vessels were sunk by the British
commander in the Savannah River, not far from this very Charles-

ton, as a protection against the approach of the French and
American naval forces ; that in 1804, under the direction of the
British Admiralty, an attempt was made to choke the entrance into
the harbor of Boulogne by sinking stone vessels, and that in 1809
the same blockade was recommended to the Admiralty by no less
a person than Lord Dundonald, with regard to another port, saying,
" Ships filled with stones will ruin forever the anchorage of Aix,
and some old vessels of the line well loaded would be excellent
for the purpose." But this complaint by the British Cabinet
becomes doubly strange, when it is considered that one of the
most conspicuous treaties of modern history contained solemn
exactions by England from France, that the harbor of Dunkirk,
whose prosperity was regarded with jealousy, should be permanently
" filled up," so that it could no longer furnish its accustomed hospi
talities to commerce. This was the Treaty of Utrecht, in 1713.
But by the Triple Alliance, only four years later, France was con
strained to stipulate again that nothing should be omitted " which
Great Britain could think necessary for the entire destruction of the
harbor," and the latter Power was authorized to send commission
ers as " ocular witnesses of the execution of the Treaty." These
humiliating provisions were renewed in successive treaties down
to the peace of Versailles in 1783, when the immunity of that
harbor was recognized with American Independence. But Great
Britain, when compelled to open Durkirk, still united with the
Dutch in closing the Scheldt, or as a British writer expresses it, she
" became bound to assist in obstructing this navigation," (JEncy-
clopcedia Britannica, Vol. x. p. 77, article, France.) One of
the two reasons put forth by Great Britain for breaking peace with
Prance in 1792, and entering upon that world-convulsing war,
was that this revolutionary Power had declared it would open the
Scheldt. And yet it is Great Britain, thus persistent in closing
ports and rivers, that now interferes to warn us against a " stone
blockade." (5.) The same propensity and the same inconsistency will be
found in another instance, where an eminent peer, once Foreign
Secretary, did not hesitate, from his place in Parliament, to
charge the United States with making medicines and surgical
instruments contraband, " contrary to all the common laws of
war, contrary to all precedent, not excluding the most ignorant
and barbarous ages." Thus exclaims the noble lord. Now I
have nothing to say of the propriety of making these things con
traband. My simple object is to exhibit the spirit against which
we are to guard. It would be difficult to believe that such a dis
play could be made in the face of the historic fact, exposed in
the satire of Peter Plymley's Letters, that. Parliament, iu 1808,
by large majorities, prohibited the exportation of Peruvian Bark
into any territory occupied by France, and that this measure was
introduced by no less a person than Mr. Percival, and commended

10
by him on the ground that " the severest pressure was already
felt on the continent from the want of this article, and that it
was of great importance to the armies of the enemy." {Han
sard's Parliamentary Debates,') Such is authentic British prece
dent, in an age neither " ignorant " nor " barbarous," which is uow
ostentatiously forgotten.
(6.) This same recklessness, which is of such evil omen, breaks
forth again in a despatch of the Foreign Secretary, where he
undertakes to communicate to Lord Lyons the judgment of the
British Cabinet on the President's Proclamation of Emancipa
tion. Here at least, you will say, there can be no misunder
standing, and no criticism; but you are mistaken. Such an act,
having such an object, and being of such unparalelled importance,
would, under any ordinary circumstances, when great passions
found no vent, have been treated by the Minister of a Foreign
Power with supreme caution, if not with sympathy ; but, under
the terrible influence of the hour. Lord Russell, not content with
condemning the Proclamation, misrepresents it in the most bare
faced manner. Gathering his condemnation into one phrase, he
says, that it " makes Slavery at once legal and illegal," whereas
it is obvious, on the face of the Proclamation, to the most careless
observer, that, whatever may be its faults, it is not obnoxious to
this criticism, for it makes Slavery legal nowhere, while it makes
it illegal in an immense territory. An official letter, so incom
prehensible in motive, from a statesman usually liberal if not
cautious, must be regarded as another illustration of that irri
tating tendency, which will be checked only when it is fully
comprehended. (7.) The activity of our navy is only another occasion for
criticism in a similar spirit. Nothing can be done any where to
please our self-constituted monitor. Our naval officers in the
West Indies, acting under instructions modelled on the judgments
of the British Admiralty, are reprehended by Lord Russell in a
formal despatch. The judges in our Prize Court are indecently
belittled by this same Minister from his place in Parliament, when
it is notorious that there are several who will compare favorably
with any British Admiralty Judge since Lord Stowell, not even
excepting that noble and upright magistrate, Dr. Lushington.
And this same Minister has undertaken to throw the British
shield over a newly-invented contraband trade with the rebel
slave-mongers via Metamoras, claiming that it was " a lawful
branch of commerce," and " a perfectly legitimate trade." The
Dolphin and Peterhoff were two ships elaborately prepared in
London, for this illicit commerce, and they have been duly con
demned as such ; but their seizure by our cruisers was made the
occasion of official protest and complaint, with the insinuation of
" vexatious capture and arbitrary interference," followed by the
menace, that, under such circumstances, " it is obvious Great
Britain must interfere to protect her flag."

11
(8.) This persistent, inexorable criticism, even at the expense
of all consistency or of all memory, has also broken forth in
forms incompatible with that very " neutrality," which was so
early declared. It was bad enough to declare neutrality, when
the question was between a friendly Power and an insulting Bar
barism ; but it was worse after the declaration to depart from it,
if in words only. The Court of Rome at a period when it pow
erfully influenced the usage of Nations, instructed its cardinal
Legate, on an important occasion, first and above all things, to
cultivate " indifference " between the parties, and in this regard
his conduct was to be so exact, that, not only should no partiality
be seen in his conduct, but it should not be remarked even
" in the words of his domestics," (Wicquefort, Parfait Ambas
sadeur, Liv. ii. p. 144.) If in that early day, before steam and
telegraph, or even the newspaper, neutrality was disturbed by
" words," how much more so now, when every word is multiplied
indefinitely, and wafted we know not where — to begin, wherever
it falls, a subtle, wide-spread and irrepressible influence. But
this injunction is in plain harmony with the refined rule of Count
Bernstoff", who, in his admirable despatch on this subject, at the
time of the Armed Neutrality, says sententiously, " Neutrality
does not exist when it is not perfect," It must be clear and
above suspicion. Like the reputation of a woman, it is lost when
you begin to talk about it. Unhappily there is too much occasion
to talk about the " neutrality" of England. I saynothing of a
Parliamentary utterance that the Natioual cause was " detested
by a large majority of the House of Commons," or of other
most unneutral speeches. I confine myself to official declara
tions. Here the case is plain. Several of the British Cabinet,
including the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, two great masters of " words," have allowed them
selves in public speeches, to characterize offensively our pres
ent effort to put down Rebel Slave-mongers, as " a contest
for empire on one side and for independence on the other."
Here were " words," which, under a specious form, were under
stood to give encouragement to Rebel Slave-mongers. But they
were more specious than true — revealing nothing but the side
espoused by the orators. Clearly on our side it is a contest
for National life, involving the liberty of a race. Clearly on the
other side it is a contest for Slavery, in order to secure for
this hateful crime neio recognition and power. Our Empire is
simply to crush Rebel Slave-mongers. Their Independence is
simply the unrestrained power to whip women and sell children.
Even if at the beginning, the National Government made no
declaration on the subject, yet the real character of the war was
none the less apparent in the repeated declarations of the other
side, who did not hesitate to assert their purpose to build a new
Power on Slavery — as in the Italian campaign of Louis Napoleon

12
against Austria, the object was necessarily apparent, even before
the Emperor tardily at Milan put forth his life-giving Proclama
tion that Italy should be free from the Alps to the Adriatic, by
which the war became, in its declared purpose, as well as in
reality, a war of Liberation. That such a Rebellion should be
elevated by the unneutral " words " of a Foreign Cabinet, into
a respectability of which it is obviously unworthy, is only another
sign which we must watch.
(9.) But these same orators of the British Cabinet, not con
tent with giving us a bad name, have allowed themselves to pro
nounce against us on the whole case. They declared that the
National Government cannot succeed in crushing Rebel Slave-
mongers and that dismemberment is inevitable. " Jefferson
Davis" says one of them " has created a nation," Thus do these
representatives of declared "neutrality" degrade us and exalt
Slavery. But it is apparent that their annunciation, though
made in Parliament and repeated at public meetings, was founded
less on any special information from the seat of war, disclosing
its secret, than on political theory, if not prejudice. It is true
that our eloquent teacher, Edmund Burke, in his famous letter to
the Sheriffs of Bristol, argued most persuasively that Great
Britain could not succeed in reclaiming the colonies, which had
declared themselves independent. His reasoning rather than
his wisdom, seems to have entered into and possessed the British
statesmen of our day, who do not take the trouble to see that the
two cases are so entirely unlike that the example of the one is not
applicable to the other ; that the colonies were battling to found
a new Power on the corner-stone of "liberty, equality and hap
piness to all men," while our Slave-mongers are battling to found
a new Power on the corner-stone of " Slavery." The difference
is such as to become a contrast — so that whatever was once gen
erously said in favor of American Independence now tells with
unmistakable force against this new-fangled pretension.
No British statesman saw the past more clearly than Lord
Russell when long ago, in striking phrase, he said that England,
in her war against our fathers, " had engaged for the suppression
of Liberty;" (^Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, 2d series. Vol.
viii. p. 1036, April 16, 1823,) but this is precisely what Rebel
Slave-mongers are now doing. Men change ; but principles are
the same now as then. Therefore, do I say, that every sympathy
formerly bestowed upon our fathers now belongs to us their
children, striving to uphold their work against bad men, who
would not only break it in pieces but put in its stead a new
piratical Power, whose declared object is " the suppression of
Liberty." And yet British ministers, mounting the prophetic
tripod, presume, most oracularly to foretell the doom of this
Republic. Their prophecies do not disturb my confidence. I
do not forget how often false prophets have appeared — includ-

13
ing the author of the Oceana, who published a demonstration
of the impossibility of monarchy in England only six months
before Charles II. entered London amidst salvoes of cannon,
and the hurrahs of the people. Nor do I stop to consider how
far such prophecies uttered in public places by British Minis
ters are consistent with that British " neutrality " which is so
constantly boasted. Opinions are sometimes allies more potent
than subsidies, especially in an age like the present. Prophecies
are opinions proclaimed and projected into the future, and yet
these are given freely to Rebel Slave-mongers. There is matter
for reflection in this instance, but I adduce it ,now only as
another illustration of the times. Nothing can be more' clear
than that whosoever assumes to play the prophet becomes pledged
in character and pretension to sustain his prophecy. The learned
Jerome Cardan, professor and doctor, and also dabbler in astrol
ogy, of great fame in the middle ages, undertook to predict the
day ofhis death, and he maintained his character as a successful
prophet by taking his own life at the appointed time. If British
Ministers, who have played the prophet, escape the ordinay influ
ences of this craft, it will be from that happy nature, which has
suspended for them human infirmity and human prejudice. But
it becomes us to note well the increased difficulties and dangers
to which on this account the National cause is exposed.
(10.) But it is not in " words " only, — of speeches, despatches
or declarations, — that our danger lies. I am sorry to add that
there are acts also with which the British Government is too closely
associated. I do not refer to the unlimited supply of " muni
tions of war," so that our army at Charleston, like our army at
Vicksburg, is compelled to encounter Armstrong guns and Blake
ley guns, with all proper ammunition, from England ; for the
right of i3ritish subjects to sell these articles to Rebel Slave-mon
gers was fixed when the latter, by sudden metamorphosis were
changed from lawless vagrants of the ocean to lawful Belligerents.
Nor do I refer to the swarms of swift steamers, " a pitchy cloud
warping on the Eastern wind," always under the British flag, with
contributions to Rebel Slave-mongers ; for these too, enjoy a kin
dred immunity. Of course, no Royal Proclamation can change
wrong into right or make such business otherwise than immoral ;
but the Proclamation may take from it the character of felony.
But even the Royal Proclamation gives no sanction to the prep
aration in England of a naval expedition against the commerce of
the United States. It leaves the Parliamentary Statute, as well
as the general Law of Nations, in full efficacy to restrain and
punish such an offence. And yet in the face of this obvious prohi
bition, standing forth in the text of the law, and founded in reason
" before human statute purged the common weal," also exempli
fied by the National Government, which, from the time of Wash
ington, has always guarded its ports against such outrage, powerful

14
ships have been launched, equipped, fitted out and manned in
England, with arms supplied at sea from another English vessel,
and then, assuming that by this insulting hocus pocus all English
liability was avoided, they have proceeded at once to rob and
destroy the commerce of the United States. England has been
their naval base from which were derived the original forces and
supplies which enable them to sail the sea. Several such ships
are now depredating on the ocean, like Captain Kidd, under pre
tended commissions — each in itself a naval expedition. As Eng
land is not at war with the United States, these ships can be
nothing else tlian pirates ; and their conduct is that of pirates.
Unable to provide a Court for the trial of prizes, they revive
for every captured ship the barbarous Ordeal of Fire, Like
pirates, they burn all that they cannot rob. Flying from sea to
sea, they turn the ocean into a furnace and melting-pot of American
commerce. Of these incendiaries the most famous is the Alabama,
with a picked crew of British sailors, with " trained gunners out
of her Majesty's naval reserve," and with every thing else from
keel to top-mast British ! which, after more than a year of unlawful
havoc, is still burning the property of our citizens, without once
entering a Rebel Slave-monger port, but always keeping the
umbilical connection with England, out of whose womb she sprung,
and never losing the original nationality stamped upon her by
origin, so that at this day she is a British pirate ship — precisely
as a native-born Englishman, robbing on the high seas, and never
naturalized abroad, is a British pirate subject.
It is bad enough that all this should proceed from England.
It is hard to bear. Why is it not stopped at once ? One cruiser
might perhaps elude a watchful Government. But it is difficult
to see how this can occur once — twice — three times ; and the cry
is still they sail. Two powerful rams are now announced, like
stars at a theatre. Will they too be allowed to perform ? I wish
there were not too much reason to believe that all these perform
ances are sustained by a prevailing British sympathy. A French
man, who was accidentally a prisoner on board the Alabama at
the destruction of two American ships, describes a British packet
in sight whose crowded passengers made the sea resound with
cheers as they witnessed the captured ships handed over to the
flames. The words of Lucretius were verified; Suave etiam
belli certamina magna tueri. But these same cheers were echoed
in Parhament, as the builder of the piratical craft gloried in his
deed. The verse which filled the ancient theatre with glad
applause, declared a sympathy with Humanity; but English
applause is now given to Slavery and its defenders ; " I am an
Englishman, and nothing of Slavery is foreign to me." Accordingly
Slavery is helped by English arms, English gold, English ships,
English speeches, English cheers. And yet for the honor of
England, let it be known, that there are Englishmen, who have

15
stood firm and unshaken amidst this painful recreancy. Their
names cannot be forgotten. And still more for the honor of
England, let it be spoken that the working classes, who were called
to suffer the most, have bravely borne their calamity, without
joining with the enemies of the Republic. Their cheers have
been for Freedom and not for Slavery.
But the cheers of the House of Commons seem to prevail in
her Majesty's Government. Municipal Law is violated — while
International Law, in its most solemn obligation to do unto others
as we would have them do unto us — is treated as if it did not
exist. Eminent British functionaries in Court and Parliament,
vindicate the naval expeditions, which, in the name of Slavery,
have been unleashed against a friendly Power. Taking advan
tage of an admitted principle, that " munitions of war " may
be supplied, the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer tells us,
that "ships of war" may be supphed also. Lord Palmerston
echoes the Lord Chief Baron. Each vouches American author
ity. But they are mistaken. The steel which they strive to
" impell " cannot be feathered from our sides. Since the
earliest stage of its existence the National Government has
asserted a distinction between the two cases ; and so has the
Supreme Court, although there are words of Story which have
been latterly quoted to the contrary. But the authority of the
Supreme Court is positive on both the points into which the
British apology is divided. The first of these is that, even if a
" ship of war " cannot be furnished, the offence is not complete
until the armament is put aboard, so that where the ship, though
fitted out and equipped in a British port, awaits her armament
at sea, she is not liable to arrest. Such an apology is an insult
to the understanding and to common sense — as if it was not
obvious that the offence begins with the laying of the keel for
the hostile ship, knowing it to be such ; and in this spirit the
Supreme Court has decided that it " was not necessary to find
that a ship on leaving port was armed or in a condition to
commit hostilities ; — for citizens are restrained from such acts as
are calculated to involve the country in a war." U. S. vs, Quincy,
6 Peters, 445.) The second apology assumes, that, even if the
armament were aboard so that the " ship of war" was complete at
all points, still the expedition would be lawful, if the juggle of a
sale were adroitly employed. But on this point the Supreme
Court, speaking by Chief Justice Marshall, has left no doubt of
its deliberate and most authoritative judgment. In the case
before the Court, the armament was aboard, but cleared as
cargo ; the men too were aboard but enlisted for a commercial
voyage ; the ship, though fitted out to cruise against a nation
with which we were at peace, was not commissioned as a privateer,
and did not attem'pt to act as such until she had reached the
River La Plata, where a commission was obtained and the crew

16
re-enlisted, yet, in the face of these extenuating circumstances, it
was declared by the whole Court that the neutrality of the United
States had been violated, so that the guilty ship could not after
wards be recognized as a legitimate cruiser. All these disguises
were to no purpose. The Court penetrated them every one,
saying that, if such a ship could lawfully sail there would be on
our part " a fraudulent neutrality, disgraceful to our government,
of which no nation would be the dupe." (T/ie Gran Para, 7
Wheat., 471, and also four other cases in same volume,') But a
"neutrality" worse even than that condemned in advance by our
Supreme Court, " of which no nation would be the dupe," is now
served out to us, which nothing but the fatal war spirit that has
entered into Great Britain can explain. There was a time when
the Foreign Secretary of England, truly eminent as statesman
and as orator, Mr. Canning, said in the House of Commons : " If
war must come, let it come in the shape of satisfaction to be
demanded for injuries, of rights to be asserted, of interests to be
protected, of treaties to be fulfilled. But, in God's name, let it
not come on in the paltry, pettifogging way of fitting out ships in
our harbors to cruise for gain. At all events let the country dis
dain to be sneaked into a war," (Canning's Speeches, Vol. v,
p. 51.) These noble words were uttered in reply to Lord John
Russell and his associates in 1823, on their proposition to repeal
the Foreign Enlistment Act and to overturn the statute safeguards
of British neutrality. But they speak now with greater force
than then.
Even if it be admitted that " ships of war," like " munitions of
war," may be sold to a Belligerent, as is asserted by the British
Prime Minister, echoing the Lord Chief Baron, it is obvious that
it can be only with the distinction, to which I have already alluded,
that the sale is a commercial transaction, pure and simple, and
not, in any respect, a hostile expedition fitted out in England.
The ship must be " exported " as an article of commerce, and it
must continue such until its arrival at the belligerent port,
where alone can it be fitted out and commissioned as a " ship of
war," when its hostile character will commence. Any attempt
in England to impart to it a hostile character, or, in one word, to
make England its naval base, must be criminal; but this is
precisely what has been done. And here are the leonine foot
prints which point so badly.
(11.) But not content with misconstruing the decisions of our
Supreme Court, in order to make them a cover for naval expedi
tions to depredate on our commerce, our whole history is forgotten
or misrepresented. It is forgotten, that, as early as 1793, under
the administration of Washington, before any Act of Congress on
the subject, the National Government recognized its liability,
under the Law of Nations, for ships fitted out in its ports to depre
date on British commerce ; that Washington, in a Message to

17
Congress, describes such ships as " vessels commissioned or
equipped in a warlike form, within the limits of the United
States," and also as " military expeditions or enterprises,"
(^American State Papers, Vol. i. p. 22,) and that Jefferson, in
vindicating this policy of repression, said, in a letter to the French
Minister, that " it was our wish to preserve the morals of our
citizens from being vitiated by courses of lawless plunder and
murder;" l^Ibid, 148.) that, on this occasion the National
Government made the distinction between " munitions of war "
which a neutral might supply in the way of commerce to a bellig-
ent, and " ships of war," which a neutral was not allowed to
supply, or even to augment with arms ; that Mr. Hammond, the
British plenipotentiary at that time, by his letter of Sth May,
1793, after complaining of two French privateers fitted out at
Charleston, to cruise against British Commerce, expressly declares
that he considers them " breaches of that neutrality which the
United States profess to observe, and direct contraventions of the
Proclamation which the President had issued," ( Wharton's State
Trials, p. 49,) and that very soon there were criminal proceed
ings, at British instigation, on account of these privateers, in
which it was affirmed by the Court, that such ships could not be
fitted out in a neutral port without a violation of international
obligations ; that, promptly thereafterwards, on the application
of the British Government, a statute was enacted, in harmony
with the Law of Nations, for the better maintenance of our neu
trality ; that, in 1818, Congress enacted another statute in the
nature of a Foreign Enlistment Act, which was proposed as
an example by Lord Castlereagh, when urging a similar statute
upon Parliament ; that in 1823 the conduct of the United
States on this whole head was proposed as an example to the
British Parliament by Mr. Canning ; that, in 1837, during the
rebellion in Canada, on the application of the British Govern
ment, and to its special satisfaction, as was announced in Par
liament by Lord Palmerston, who was at the time Foreign
Secretary, our Government promptly declared its purpose " to
maintain the supremacy of those laws which had been passed to
fulfil the obligations of the United States towards all nations
which should be engaged in foreign or domestic warfare ; " and,
not satisfied with its existing powers, undertook to ask additional
legislation from Congress ; that Congress proceeded at once to tlie
enactment of another statute, calculated to meet the immediate
exigency, wherein it was provided that collectors, marshals and
other officers shall " seize and detain any vessel which may be
provided or prepared for any military expedition or enterprise
against the territories or dominions of any Foreign Prince or
Power." (Statutes at Large, Vol. v. p. 212.) It is something
to forget these things ; but it is convenient to forget still further
that, on the breaking out of the Crimean War, in 1854, the
2

18
British Government, jointly with France, made another appeal to
the United States, tliat our citizens " should rigorously abstain
from taking part in armaments of Russian privateers, or in any
other measure opposed to the duties of a strict neutrality " and
this appeal, which was declared by the British Government to be
" in the spirit of just reciprocity," was answered ou our part by a
sincere and determined vigilance, so that not a single British or
French ship suffered from any cruiser fitted out in our ports.
And it is also convenient to forget still further the solemn obhga
tions of Treaty, binding on both parties, by which it is stipulated,
" That the subjects and citizens of the two nations shall not do any acts of
hostiUty or violence against each othir, nor accept commissions or instructions
so to act from any foreign prince or state, enemies lo the other party ; nor
shall the enemies of one of the parties be permitted to invite or endeavor
to enlist in their military service, any of the subjects or citizens of the other
party ; and the laws against all such offences and aggressions shall he punc
tually executed," (Statutes at Large, Vol. viii. p. 127.)
But at the date of this Treaty, in 1794, there was little legislation
on the subject in either country ; so that the Treaty, in harmony
with the practice, testifies to the requirements of the Law of
Nations, as understood at the time by both Powers.
And yet, forgetting all these things, — which show how faith
fully tlie National Government has acted, both in measures
of repression and measures of compensation — also how often the
British Government has asked and received protection at our
hands, and how highly our example of neutrality has been appre
ciated by leading British statesmen — and forgetting also that
"spirit of just reciprocity" which, besides being the prompting
of an honest nature, had been positively promised — ship after ship
is permitted to leave British ports to depredate on our commerce ;
and when we complain of this outrage, so unprecedented and so
unjustifiable, all the obligations of International Law are ignored,
and we are petulantly told that the evidence against the ships is
not sufficient under the statute ; and when we propose that the
statute shall be rendered efficient for the purpose, precisely as in
past times the British Government, under circumstances less
stringent, proposed to us, we are pointedly repelled by the old
baronial declaration, that there must be no change in the laws of
England; while to cap tWs strange insensibility. Lord Palmerston,
in one of the last debates of the late Parliament, brings against
us a groundless charge of infidelity to our neutral duties during
the Crimean war, when the fact is notoriously the reverse, and
Lord Russell, in the same spirit, imagines an equally groundless
charge, which he records in a despatch, that we have recently
enhsted men in Ireland, when notoriously we have done no such
thing. Thus all the obhgations of reciprocal service and good
will are openly discarded, while our public conduct, as well in
the past as the present, is openly misrepresented.

19
(12.) This flagrant oblivion of history and of duty, which seems
to be the adopted policy of the British Government, has been
characteristically followed by a flat refusal to pay for the damages
to our commerce caused by the hostile expeditions. The United
States, under Washington, on the application of the British
Government, made compensation for damages to British commerce
under circumstances much less vexatious, and, still further, by
special treaty, made compensation for damages "by vessels origi
nally armed " in our ports, which is the present case. Of course,
it can make no diff'erence — not a pin's diff'erence — if the armament
is carried out to sea, in another vessel from a British port, and there
transhipped. Such an evasion may be effectual against a Par
liamentary statute, but it will be impotent against a demand upon
the British Government, according to the principles of Interna
tional Law; for this law looks always at the substance and not the
form, and will not be diverted by the trick of a pettifogger.
Whether the armament be put on board in port or at sea,
England is always the naval base, or, according to the language
of Sir William Scott, in a memorable case, the " station " or
" vantage ground," — which he declared a neutral country could
not be. ( Twee Gebroeders, 3 Robinson, R. 162.) Therefore,
the early precedent between the United States and England
is in every respect completely applicable, and since this prece
dent was established — not onJ.y by the consent of England but
at her motion — it must be accepted on the present occasion
as an irreversible declaration of International duty. Other
nations might differ, but England is bound. And now it is
her original interpretation, first made to take compensation from
us, which is flatly rejected, when we ask compensation from her.
But even if the responsibility for a hostile expedition fitted out in
British ports were not plain, there is something in the recent con
duct of the British Government calculated to remove all doubt.
Pirate ships are reported on the stocks ready to be launched, and
when the Parliamentary statute is declared insufficient to stop
them, the British Government declines to amend it, and so doing,
it openly declines to stop the pirate ships, saying, " if the Parlia
mentary statute is inadequate then let them sail." It is not
needful to consider the apology. The act of declension is positive
and its consequences are no less positive, fixing beyond question
the responsibility of the British Government for these criminal
expeditions. In thus fixing this responsibility, we but follow the
suggestions of reason, and the text of an approved authority,
whose words have been adopted in England.
" Ji must he laid down as a maxim, that a sovereign, who, knowing the
crimes of his subjects, as for example that they practice piracy on strangers,
and being also able and obliged to hinder it, does not hinder it, renders
himself criminal, hecause he has consented to the had action, the commission

20
of which he has permitted. It is presumed that a Sovereign knows what
his subjects openly and frequently commit, and, as to his power of hindering
the evil, this likewise is always presumed, unless the want of it be clearly
proved." Such are the words of Burlemaqui, in his work on Natural Law,
quoted with approbation by Phillimore in his work on the Law
of Nations.— (PAz//imore, Vol. i. p. 237.) Unless these words are
discarded as " a maxim," — while the early precedent of British
demand upon us for compensation is also rudely rejected— it is
difficult to see how the British Government can avoid the conse
quences of complicity with the pirate ships in all their lawless
devastation. But I forbear to dwell on this accumulating liability,
amounting already to many millions of dollars, with accumulating
exasperations also. My present object is accomplished, if I
make you see which way danger lies.
(13.) But beyond acts and words this same British rabbia
shows itself in the official tone, which has been adopted towards
the National cause in its unparalelled struggle — especially
throughout the correspondence of the British Foreign Office. Of
course, there is no friendship in any of these letters. Nor is there
any sympathy with the National championship against Rebel Slave-
mongers, nor one word of mildest dissent even from the miscreant
apostolate which was preached in their behalf. Naturally the
tone is in harmony with the serttiment. Hard, curt, captious,
cynical, it evinces an indifference to those kindly relations which
nations ought to cultivate with each other, and which should be
the study of a wise statesmanship. The Malay runs a-muck, and
such is the favorite diplomatic style in dealing with us. This is
painfully conspicuous in all that concerns the pirate ships. But
I can well understand 'that a Minister, who so easily conceded
Belligerent Rights to Rebel Slave-mongers, and then so easily
permitted their ships to sally forth for piracy, would be very
indifferent to the tone of what he wrote. And yet even outrage
may be soothed or softened by gentle words ; but none such have
come out of British diplomacy to us. Most deeply do I regret
this too suggestive failure. And believe me, fellow citizens, I say
Ihese things with sorrow unspeakable, and only in discharge of
¦my duty on this occasion, when, face to face, I meet you to
consider the aspects of our affairs abroad.
i(14.) But there is still another head of danger in which all
others culminate. I refer to an intrusive Mediation or, it may be,
a Recognition of the Slave-monger pretension as an Independent
Nation ; for such propositions have been openly made in Parlia
ment and constantly urged by the British press, and, though not
yet adopted by her Majesty's Government, they have never been
repelled on principle, so that they constitute a perpetual cloud,
threatening ,to break, in our foreign relations. It is plain to all

21
who have not forgotten history, that England never can be guilty
of such Recognition without an unpardonable apostacy ; nor can
she intervene by way of Mediation except in the interests of
Freedom. And yet such are the strange " elective affinities "
newly born between England and Slavery ; such is the towering
blindness, with regard to our country, kindred to that which pre
vailed in the time of George Grenville and Lord North, that her
Majesty's Government, instead of repelling the proposition, simply
adjourn it, meanwhile adopting the attitude of one watching to
strike. The British Minister at Washington, of model prudence,
whose individual desire for peace I cannot doubt, tells his Govern
ment in a despatch which will be found in the last Blue Book,
that as yet he sees no sign of " a conjuncture at which Foreign
Powers may step in with propriety and effect to put a stop to the
effusion of blood." Here is a plain assumption that such a con
juncture may occur. But for the present we are left free to wage
the battle against Slavery without any such Intervention in arrest
of our efforts.
Such are some of the warnings which lower from the English
sky, bending over the graves of Wilberforce and Clarkson, while
sounding from these sacred graves are heard strange, un-English
voices, crying out, " Come unto us. Rebel Slave-mongers, whip-
pers of women and sellers of children, for you are the people
of our choice, whom we welcome promptly to ocean rights —
with Armstrong guns and nSjal expeditions equipped in our
ports, and on whom we lavish sympathy always and the prophecy
of success ; — while for you, who uphold the Republic and oppose
Slavery, we have hard words, criticism, rebuke and the menace
of war." Perils from France,
If we cross the channel into France, -we shall not be encouraged
much. And yet the Emperor, though acting habitually in concert
with the British Cabinet, has not intermeddled so illogically or
displayed a temper of so little international amiability. The
correspondence under his direction, even at the most critical
moments, leaves little to be desired in respect of form. Nor has
there been a single blockade-runner under the French flag ; nor
a single pirate ship from a French port. But in spite of these
things, it is too apparent that the Emperor has taken sides against
lis in at least four important public acts — positively, plainly,
offensively. The Duke de Choiseul, Prime Minister of Prance,
was addressed by Frederick the Great, as " the coachman of
Europe," — a title which belongs now to Louis Napoleon. But he
must not try to be " the coachman of America."
(1.) Following the example of England Louis Napoleon has
acknowledged the Rebel Slave-mongers as ocean Belligerents, so
that with the sanction of France, our ancient ally, their pirate

22
ships, although without a single open port which they can call
their own, enjoy a complete immunity as lawful cruisers, while all
who sympathize with them may furnish supplies and munitions of
war. This fatal concession was aggravated by the concurrence
of the two great Powers. But, God be praised, their joint act,
though capable of giving a brief vitality to Slavery on pirate
decks, will be impotent to confirm this intolerable pretension.
(¦2.) Sinister events are not alone and this recognition of
Slavery was followed by an expedition of France, in concurrence
with England and Spain, against our neighbor Republic, Mexico,
The two latter Powers, with becoming wisdom, very soon with
drew ; but the Emperor did not hesitate to enter upon an invasion.
A French fleet with an unmatched iron-clad, the consummate
product of French naval art, is now at Vera Cruz and the French
army after a protracted siege has stormed Puebla and entered the
famous Capital. This far-reaching enterprise was originally said
to be a sort of process, served by a general, for the recovery of
outstanding debts due to French citizens. But the Emperor in a
mystic letter to General Forey gave to it another character. He
proposed nothing less than the restoration of the Latin race on
this side of the Atlantic, and more than intimates that the United
States must be restrained in power and influence over the Gulf
of Mexico and the Antilles. And now the Archduke Maximilian
of Austria has been proclaimed Emperor of Mexico under the
protection of France. It is obvious that this imperial invasion,
though not openly directed against us, would not have been made,
if our convulsions had not left the door of the continent ajar, so
that foreign Powers may now bravely enter in. And it is more
obvious that this attempt to plant a throne by our side would
" have died before it saw the light," had it not been supposed that
the Rebel Slave-mongers were about to triumph. Plainly the
whole transaction is connected with our affairs, and I know not if
it may not be a stepping-stone to some actual participation in the
widening circle of the war. But it can be little more than a
transient experiment — for who can doubt that this imperial exotic,
planted by foreign care and propped by foreign bayonets, will
disappear before the ascending glory of the Republic.
(3.) This enterprise of war was followed by an enterprise of
diplomacy not less hardy. The Emperor, not content with stirring
against us the gulf of Mexico, the Antilles and the Latin race,
entered upon work of a different character. He invited England
and Russia to unite with France in tendering to the two Belliger
ents (such is the equal designation of our Republic and the
embryo slave-monger mockery !) their joint Mediation to procure
" an armistice for six months, during which every act of war,
direct or indirect, should provisionally cease on sea as well as on
land, to be renewed if necessary for a further period." The
Cabinets of England and Russia,' better inspired, declined the

23
invitation, which looked to little short of Recognition itself. Under
the armistice proposed all our vast operations must have been
suspended — the blockade itself must have ceased — while the rebel
ports were opened ou the one side to unlimited imports of supplies
and military stores, and on the other side to unlimited exports of
cotton. Trade for the time would have been legalized in these
ports, and Slavery would have lifted its grinning front before the
civilized world. Not disheartened by this failure, the Emperor
alone pushed forward his diplomatic enterprise against us, as lie
had alone pushed forward his military enterprise against Mexico,
and he proposed to our Government the unsupported mediation
of France. His offer was promptly rejected by the , President.
Congress by solemn resolutions, adopted by both Houses, with
singular unanimity, and communicated since to all foreign govern
ments, announced that such a proposition could be attributed
only " to a misunderstanding of the true state of the question
and the real character of the war in which the Republic is
engaged ; and that it was in its nature so far injurious to the
national interests that Congress would be obliged to consider its
repetition an unfriendly act." This is strong language, but it
frankly states the true position of our country. Any such offer,
whatever may be its motive, must be an encouragement to the
Rebellion. In an age when ideas prevail and even words become,
things, the simple declarations of statesmen are of incalculable
importance. But the head of a great nation is more than states
man. The imperial proposition tended directly to the dismem
berment of the Republic and the substitution of a ghastly Slave-
monger nation.
Baffled in this effort, twice attempted, the Emperor does not
yet abandon its policy. We are told that " it is postponed to a
more suitable opportunity ;" so that he too waits to strike — if the
Gallic cock does not sound the alarm in an opposite quarter.
Meanwhile the development of the Mexican expedition shows too
clearly the motive of mediation. It was all one transaction.
Mexico was invaded for empire, and mediation was proposed in
order to help the plot. But the invasion must fail with the
'diplomacy to which it is allied.
(4.) But the policy of the French Emperor towards our
Republic has not been left to any uncertain inference. For a
long time public report has declared him to be unfriendly, and
now public report is confirmed by what he has done and said.
The ambassadorial attorney of Rebel Slave-mongers has been
received by him at the Tuilleries ; members of Parliament, on an
errand of hostility to our cause, have been received by him at
Fontainebleau ; and the official declaration has been made that
he desires to recognize the Rebel Slave-mongers as an Independent
Power, This has been hard to believe ; but it is too true. Tlie
French Emperor is against us. In an evil hour, under tempta-

24
tions which should be scouted, he forgets the precious tradi
tions of France whose blood commingled with ours in a common
cause ; he forgets the sword of Lafayette and Rochambeau flash
ing by the side of the sword of Washington and Lincoln, while
the lihes of the ancient monarchy floated together with the
stars of our infant flag ; he forgets that early alliance, sealed
by Franklin, which gave to the Republic the assurance of
national life, and made France the partner of her rising glory ;
Heu pietas, heu prisca fides, — manibus date liliaplenis; and he
forgets still more the obligations of his own name, — how the
first Napoleon surrendered to us Louisiana and the whole region
West of the Mississippi, saying, " this accession of territory
establishes forever the power of the United States, and gives to
England a maritime rival destined to humble her pride ; " and
he forgets also how he himself, when beginning his Intervention
for Italian Liberty, boasted proudly that Prance always stood for
an " idea ; " and, forgetting these things, which mankind cannot
forget, he seeks the disjunction of this Republic, with the spoliation
of that very territory, which had come to us from the first Napo
leon, while France, always standing for an " idea " is made under
his auspices to stand for the " idea " of welcome to a new evangel
of Slavery, with Mason and Slidell as the evangelists. Thus is
the imperial influence thrown on the side of Rebel Slave-mongers.
Unlike the ancient Gaul, the Emperor forbears for the present to
fling his sword into the scale ; but he flings his heavy hand, if
not his sword.
But only recently we have the menace of the sword. The
throne of Mexico has been offered to an Austrian Archduke. The
desire to recognize the Independence of Rebel Slave-mongers has
been officially declared. These two incidents are to be taken
together — as the complements of each other. And now we are
assured by concurring report, that Mexico is to be maintained as
an Empire. The policy of the Holy Alliance, originally organized
against the great Napoleon, is adopted by his representative
ou the throne of France. What its despot authors left undone
the present Emperor, nephew of the first, proposes to accomplish.
It is said that Texas also is to be brought under the Imperial Pro
tectorate, thus ravishing a possession, which belongs to this
Republic, as much as Normandy belongs to France. The " parti
tion " of Poland is acknowledged to be the great crime of the last
century. It was accomphshed by Three Powers, with the silent
connivance ofthe rest ; but not without pangs of remorse on the part
of one of the spoilers. " I know," said Maria Theresa to the ambas
sador of Louis XVL, " that I have brought a deep stain on my
reign by what has been done in Poland ; but I am sure that I should
be forgiven, if it could be known what repugnance I had to it."
{Flassdn, Histoire de la Diplomatie Francaise, Vol. vii. p. 125.)
But tlie French Emperor seeks to play on this continent the very

25
part which of old caused the contrition of Maria Theresa ; nor could
the " partition" of our broad country — if in an evil hour it were
accomplished — fail to be the great crime of the present century.
Trampler upon the Republic in France — trampler upon the Repub
lic in Mexico — it remains to be seen if the French Emperor can
prevail as trampler upon this Republic. I do not think he can ;
nor am I anxious on account of the new Emperor of Mexico, who
will be as powerless as King Canute against the rising tide ofthe
American people. His chair must be withdrawn or he will be
overwhelmed. And here I bring to an end this unpleasant review. It is with
small satisfaction, and only in explanation of our relations with
Foreign Powers, that I have accumulated these instances, not one
of which, small as well as great, is without its painful lesson,
while they all testify with a single voice to the perils of our
country. [II.]
Foreign Intervention, by Mediation or Intercession.
But there is another branch of the subject, which is not less
important. Considering all these things and especially how great
Powers abroad have constantly menaced Intervention in our war,
now by criticism and now by proffers of Mediation, all tending
painfully to something further, it becomes us to see what, accord
ing to the principles of International Law and the examples
of history will justify Foreign Intervention, in any of the forms
which it may take. And here there is one remark which may
be made at the outset. Nations are equal in the eye of Inter
national Law, so that what is right for one is right for all. It
follows that no nation can justly exercise any right which it
is not bound to concede under like circumstances. Therefore,
should our cases be reversed, there is nothing which England
and Fraiice have now proposed or which, they may hereafter
propose which it will not be our equal right to propose, when
Ireland or India once more rebel, or when France is in the throes
of its next revolution. Generously and for the sake of that Inter
national Comity, which should not be lightly hazarded, we may
reject the precedents they now furnish ; but it will be hard for
them to complain if we follow them.
Poreign Intervention is on its face inconsistent with every idea
of National Independence, which in itself is nothing more than
the conceded right of a nation to rest undisturbed so long as it
does not disturb others. If nations stood absolutely alone, dis
sociated from each other, so that what passed in one had little or
no influence in another, only a tyrannical or intermeddling spirit
could fail to recognize this right. But civilization itself, by draw
ing nations nearer together and bringing them into one society,
has brought them under reciprocal influence, so that no nation

26
can now act or suffer by itself alone. Out of the relations and
suggestions of good neighborhood — involving, of course, the admit
ted right of self-defence — springs the only justification or apology
which can be found for Foreign Intervention, which is the general
term to signify an interposition in the affairs of another coun
try, whatever form it may take. Much is done under the name
of " good offices," whether in the form of Mediation or Interces
sion ; and much also by military power, whether in the declared will
of superior force or directly by arms. Recognition of Indepen
dence is also another instance. Intervention in any form is
interference. If peaceable it must be judged by its motive and
tendency; if forcible it will naturally be resisted by force.
Intervention may be between two or more nations, or it may be
between the two parties to a civil war ; and yet again, it may be
where there is no war, foreign or domestic. In each case, it
should be governed strictly by the same principles, except, per
haps, that, in the case of a civil war, there should be a more
careful consideration, not only of the rights, but of the suscepti
bilities of a nation so severely tried. This is the obvious sugges
tion of humanity. Indeed, Intervention between nations is only
a common form of participation in foreign war ; but intervention
in a civil war is an intermeddling in the domestic concerns of
another nation. Of course, whoever acts at the joint invitation
of the belligerent parties, in order to compose a bloody strife, will
be entitled to the blessings which belong to the peace-makers ;
but, if uninvited, or acting only at the invitation of one party,
he will be careful to proceed with reserve and tenderness, in the
spirit of peace, and will confine his action to a proffer of good
offices in the form of Mediation or Intercession, unless he is ready
for war. Such a proffer may be declined without offence. But
it can never be forgotten that, where one side is obviously fighting
for Barbarism, any Intervention, whatever form it may take, — if
only by captious criticism, calculated to give encouragement to
the wrong side, or to secure for it time or temporary toleration,
if not final success, — is plainly immoral. If not contrary to the
Law of Nations, it ought to be.
Intervention, in the spirit of Peace and for the sake of Peace,
is one of the refinements of modern civilization. Intervention,
in the spirit of war, if not for the sake of war, has filled a large
space in history, ancient and modern; But all these instances
may be grouped under two heads ; first. Intervention in external
affairs ; and, secondly. Intervention in internal affairs. The first
may be illustrated by the Intervention of the Elector Maurice, of
Saxony, against Charles V. ; of King WiUiam against Louis
XIV. ; of Russia and France, in the seven years' war ; of Russia
again between France and Austria, in 1805, and also between
France and Prussia, in 1806 ; and of France, Great Britain and
Sardinia, between Turkey and Russia, in the war of the Crimea.

27
The Intervention of Russia, Austria, and Prussia, in the affairs
of Poland ; of Great Britain among the native Powers of India ;
and of the Allied Powers, under the continued inspiration of the
Treaty of Piluitz, in the French Revolution, are illustrations of
the second head. But without dwelling on these great examples,
I shall call attention to instances, which show more especially the
growth of intervention, first, in external, and, then, in internal
affairs. And here I shall conceal nothing. Instances, which
seem to be against the principles which I have at heart, will at
least help to illustrate the great subject, so that you may see it
as it is. Intervention in External Affairs.
(1.) First in order, and for the sake of completeness, I speak
of Intervention in external affairs, where two or more nations are
parties. As long ago as 1645, France offered Mediation between what
was then called " the two crowns of the North," Sweden and
Denmark. This was followed, in 1648, by the famous Peace of
Westphalia, the beginning of our present Law of Nations, which
was negotiated under the joint Mediation of the Pope and the
Republic of Venice, present by Nuncio and Ambassador. Shortly
afterwards, in 1655, the Emperor of Germany offered his Media
tion between Sweden and Poland, but the old historian records
that the Swedes suspected him of seeking to increase rather than
to arrange pending difficulties, which was confirmed by his
appearance shortly afterwards in the Polish camp. But Sweden,
though often belligerent in those days, was not so always, and, in
1672, when war broke forth between France and England on one
side and the Dutch Provinces on the other, we find her proffering
a Mediation, which was promptly accepted by England, who justly
rejected a similar proffer which the Elector of Brandenburg,
ancestor of the kings of Prussia, had the hardihood to make while
marching at the head of his forces to join the Dutch. The
English notes on this occasion, written in what at the time was
called " sufficiently bad French but in most intelligible terms,"
declared that the Electoral proffer, though under the pleasant
name of mediation, (^par le doux nom de mediation,) was in real
ity an arbitration, and that, instead of a Mediation, unarmed and
disinterested, it was a Mediation, armed and pledged to the
enemies of England. (Wicquefort, L' Ambassadeur, Vol. i.
p. 135.)
Such are some of the earlier instances, alj of which have their
lesson for us. But there are modern instances. I allude only to
the Triple Alliance between Great Britain, Prussia and Holland,
which, at the close of the last century, successively intervened,
by a Mediation, which could not be resisted, to compel Denmark —

28
which had sided with Russia against Sweden — to remain neutral for
the rest of the war ; then in 1791 to dictate the terms of peace
between Austria and the Porte ; and lastly in 1792, to constrain
Russia into an abandonment of her designs upon the Turkish
Empire, by the peace of Jassey. On this occasion the Empress
of Russia, Catharine, peremptorily refused the Mediation of
Prussia and the Mediating Alliance made its approaches through
Denmark, by whose good offices the Empress was finally induced
to consent to the Treaty. While thus engaged in a work of pro
fessed Mediation, England, in a note to the French ambassador
declined a proposition to act as Mediator between Prance and the
Allied Powers; leaving that world-embracing war to proceed. But
England has not only refused to act as Mediator but has also refused
to submit to a mediation. This was during the last war with the
United States, when Russia, at that time the ally of England,
proffered her Mediation between the two belligerents, which was
promptly accepted by the United States. Its rejection at the
time by England, causing the prolongation of hostilities, was
considered by Sir James Mackintosh less justifiable, as " a medi
ator is a common friend, who counsels both parties with a weight
proportioned to their belief in his integrity and their respect for
his power ; but he is not an arbitrator to whose decision they sub
mit their differences where award is binding on them." The
peace of Ghent was concluded at last under Russian Mediation.
But England has not always been belligerent. When Andrew
Jackson menaced letters of marque against France, on account of
a failure to pay a sum stipulated in a recent Treaty with the
United States, King William IV. proffered his Mediation between
the two Powers ; but happily the whole question was already
arranged. It appears also that, before our war with Mexico, the
good offices of England were tendered to the two parties, but
neither was willing to accept them, and war took its course.
Such are instances of interference in the external affairs of
nations, and since" International Law is to be traced in history,
they furnish a guide which we cannot safely neglect, especially
in view of the actual policy of England and France.
Intervention in Internal Affairs,
(2.) But the instances of Poreign Intervention in the internal
affairs of a nation are more pertinent to the present occasion.
They are numerous and not always harmonious, especially if we
compare the new with the old. In the earlier times such Inter
vention was regarded with repugnance. But the principle then
declared has been sapped on the one side by the conspiracies of
tyranny, seeking the suppression of liberal institutions, and on
the other side, by a generous sympathy, breaking forth in support
of hberal institutions. According to the old precedents, most of

29
which will be found in the gossiping book of Wicquefort, from
whence they have been copied by Mr. Wildman, even Foreign
Intercession was prohibited. Not even in the name of charity
could one ruler speak to another on the domestic affairs of his
government. Peter, King of Arragon, refused to receive an
embassy from Alphonzo, King of Castile, entreating mercy for
rebels. Charles IX., of Prance, a detestable monarch, in reply to
ambassadors of the Protestant princes of Germany, pleading for his
Protestant subjects, insolently said that he required no tutors to
teach him how to rule. And yet this same sovereign did not
hesitate to ask the Duke of Savoy to receive certain subjects
" into his benign favor and to restore and re-establish them in
their confiscated estates." (Guizot's Cromwell, Vol. ii. p. 210.)
In this appeal there was a double inconsistency ; for it was not
only an interference in the affairs of another Prince but it was in
behalf of Protestants, only a few months before the massacre of
St. Bartholomew. Henry IIL, the successor of Charles, and a
detestable monarch also, in reply to the Protestant ambassadors,
announced that he was a sovereign prince, and ordered them to
leave his dominions. Louis XIII. was of a milder nature, and yet
when the English ambassador, the Earl of Carlisle, presumed to
speak in favor of the Huguenots, he declared that no interference
between the King of. France and his subjects could be approved.
The Cardinal Richelieu, who governed France so long, learning
that an attempt was made to procure the Intercession of the
Pope stopped it by a message to his Holiness, that the King would
be displeased by any such interference. The Pope himself, on
another recorded occasion, admitted that it would be a pernicious
precedent to allow a subject to negotiate terms of accommodation
through a foreign Prince. On still another occasion, when the
King of Prance, forgetting his own rule, interposed in behalf of the
Barberini Family, Innocent X. declared, that as he had no desire
to interfere in the affairs of France, he trusted that his Majesty
would not interfere in his. Queen Christina of Sweden, on
merely hinting a disposition to proffer her good offices, for the
settlement of the unhappy divisions of France, was told by the
Queen Regent, that she might give herself no trouble on the
subject, and one of her own Ministers at Stockholm declared that
the overture had been properly rejected. Nor were the States
General of Holland less sensitive. They even went so far as to
refuse audience to the Spanish ambassador, seeking to congratu
late them on th'e settlement of a domestic question, and, when
the French ambassador undertook to plead for the Roman Cath
olics, the States by formal resolution denounced his conduct as
inconsistent with the peace and constitution of the Republic, all
of which was communicated to' him by eight deputies who added
by word of mouth whatever the resolution seemed to want in
plainness of speech.

30
Nor is England without similar examples. Louis XIIL,
shortly after the marriage of his sister Henrietta Maria with
Charles I., consented that the Enghsh ambassador should
interpose for the French Protestants; but when the French
ambassador in England requested the repeal of a law against
Roman Catholics, Charles expressed his surprise that the King of
France should presume to intermeddle in English affairs. Even
as late as 1745, when, after the battle of Culloden, the Dutch
ambassador in France was induced to address the British Govern
ment in behalf of Charles Edward, the Pretender, to the effect
that if taken he should not be treated as a rebel, it is recorded
that this Intercession was greatly resented by the British Govern
ment which, not content with an apology from the unfortunate
official, required that he should be rebuked by his own govern
ment also. And this is British testimony with regard to Intervention
in a civil war, even when it took the mildest form of Intercession
for the life of a prince.
But in the face of these repulses, all these nations at different
times have practiced Intervention in every variety of form. Some
times by Intercession or " good offices " only, sometimes by
Mediation, and often by arms. Even these instances attest the
intermeddling spirit, for wherever Intervention was thus repulsed,
it was at least attempted.
But there are two precedents belonging to the earlier period,
which deserve to stand apart, not only for their historic impor
tance, but for their applicability to our times. The first was the
effort of that powerful minister, who during the minority of Louis
XIV. swayed France — Cardinal Mazarin — to institute a Mediation
between King Charles I. and his Parliament. The civil war had
already been waged for years ; good men on each side, had fallen,
Falkland fighting for the King and Hampden fighting for the Par
liament, and other costliest blood had been shed on the fields of
Worcester, Edgehill, Newbury, Marston Moor, and Naseby, when
the ambitious Cardinal, wishing to serve the King, according to
Clarendon, promised " to press the parliament so imperiously, and
to denounce a war against them, if they refused to yield what was
reasonable." For this important service he selected the famous
Pomponne de Believre, of a family tried in public duties — himself
President of the Parliament of Paris and a peer of France — con
spicuous in personal qualities, as in place, whose beautiful head
preserved by the graver of Nantueil is illustrious in art, and whose
dying charity lives still in the great hospital of the Hotel Dieu at
Paris. On his arrival at London, the graceful ambassador pre
sented himself to that Long Parliament which knew so well how
to guard Enghsh rights. Every overture was at once rejected, by
formal proceedings, from which I copy these words : " We do
declare that we ourselves have been careful on all occasions to
compose these unhappy troubles, yet we have not, neither can.

31
admit of any Mediation or interposing betwixt the King and us by
any foreign Prince or State ; and we desire that his Majesty, the
French King, will rest satisfied with this our resolution and
answer." On the committee which drew this reply was John
Selden, unsurpassed for learning and ability in the whole splendid
history of the English bar, on every book of whose library was
written, " Before every thing, Liberty," and also that Harry Vaiie
whom Milton, in one ofhis most inspired sonnets, addresses, as
" Vane, young in years, but in sage counsel old,
Than whom a better Senator ne'er held
The helm of Rome, when gowns not arms repelled
The fierce Epirot and the African bold."
The answer 'of such men may well be a precedent to us; especially
should England, taking up the rejected policy of Mazarin, presume
to send any ambassador to stay the Republic in its war with
Slavery. But the same heart of oak, which was so strenuous to repel
the Intervention of France, in the great question between King
and Parliament, was not less strenuous even in Intervention — when
it could serve the rights of England or the principles of religious
liberty. Such was England when ruled by the great Protector,
called in his own day " chief of men." No nation so powerful
as to be exempt from that irresistible intercession, where beneath
the garb of peace there was a gleam of arms. Prom France,
even under the rule of Mazarin, he claimed respect for the
Protestant name, which he insisted upon maldng great and
glorious. From Spain, on whose extended empire the sun at
that time never ceased to shine, he insisted that no Englishman
should be subject to the Inquisition. Reading to his council a
despatch from Admiral Blake, announcing that he had obtained
justice from the Viceroy of Malaga, Cromwell said " that he
hoped to make the name of Englishman as great as ever that of*
Roman had been." In this same lofty mood he turned to propose
his Mediation between Protestant Sweden and Protestant Bremen,
" chiefly bewailing that being both his friends they should so
despitefully combat one against another ;" " offering his assistance
to a commodious accommodation on both sides," and " exhorting
them by no means to refuse any honest conditions of reconcili
ation." — (^Milton's Prose Works, Vol. vi. p. 315, 16.) Here was
Intervention between nation and nation ; but it was soon followed
by an Intervention in the internal affairs of a distant country,
which of all the acts of CromWell is the most touching and
sublime. The French ambassador was at Whitehall urging the
signature of a treaty, when news unexpectedly came from a
secluded valley of the Alps — far away among those mountain
torrents which are the affluents of the Po— that a company of
pious Protestants, who had been for centuries gathered there,

32
where they kept the truth pure " when our fathers worshipped
stocks and stones," were now suffering terrible persecution from
their sovereign, Emanuel of Savoy ; that they had been despoiled
of all possessions and liberties, brutally driven from their homes,
given over to a licentious and infuriate violence, and that when
they turned in self-defence, they had been " slain by the bloody
Piemontese, that rolled mother with infant down the rocks ; " and
it was reported that French troops took part in this dismal
transaction. The Protector heard the story, and his pity flashed
into anger. He dechned to sign the treaty until France united
with him in securing justice to these humble sufferers, whom he
called the Lord's people. For their relief he contributed out of
his own purse £2,000, and authorized a general collection through
out England, which reached to a large sum ; but, besides giving
money, he set apart a day of Humiliation and Prayer for them.
Nor was this all. " I should be glad," wrote his Secretary,
Thurloe, " to have a most particular account of that business,
and to know what has become of these poor people, for whom our
very souls here do bleed." — {Vaughan's Protectorate, Vol, i, -p,
177.) But a mightier pen than that of any plodding secretary
was enlisted in this pious Intervention. It was John Milton,
glowing with that indignation which his sonnet on the massacre
in Piemont has made immortal in the heart of man, who wrote
the magnificent despatches, in which the English nation of that day
after declaring itself " linked together with its distant brethren,
not only by the same type of humanity, but by joint communion
of the same religion," naturally and gloriously insisted that
" whatever had been decreed to their disturbance on account of
the Reformed Religion should be abrogated, and that an end be
put to their oppressions." But not content with this call upon
the Prince of Savoy, the Protector appealed to Louis XIV. and
also to his Cardinal Minister ; to the States General of Holland ;
, to the Protestant Cantons of Switzerland ; to the King of Denmark ;
to Gustavus Adolphus, and even to the Protestant Unitarian
Prince of remote Transylvania ; and always by the pen of Milton
— rallying these Princes and Powers in joint intreaty and inter
vention and " if need be to some other speedy course, that such a
numerous multitude of our innocent brethren may not miserably
perish for want of succor and assistance." The regent of Savoy,
who was the daughter of Henry IV., professed to be affected by this
English charity, and announced for her Protestant subjects " a free
pardon, and also such privileges and graces as cannot but give
the Lord Protector a sufficient evidence of the great respect borne
both to his person and Mediation," — ( Guizot's History of Crom
well, Vol. h. p. 211-19; Milton's Prose Works, Vol. vi. p. 318-37.)
But there was still delay. Meanwhile Cromwell began to inquire
^where Enghsh troops might debark in the Prince's territories,
'and Mazarin, anxious to complete the yet unfinished Treaty with

33
England, joined in requiring an immediate pacification in the
valleys and the restoration of these persecuted people to their
ancient liberties. It was done. Such is the grandest Intervention
of English history, inspired by Milton, enforced by Cromwell, and
sustained by Louis XIV., with his Cardinal minister by his side,
while foreign nations watched the scene.
But this great instance, constituting an inseparable part of
the glory of the Protector, is not the last occasion on which Eng
land intervened in behalf of the liberties of Protestants. Troubles
began in France with the revocation of the edict of Nantes ; but
these broke forth in the rebellion of the Camisards, smarting
under the revocation. Sheltered by the mountains of the Ce-
vennes, and nerved by tiieir good cause, with the device, " Liberty
of Conscience " on their standards, they made head against two
successive Marshals of Prance, and perplexed the old age of Louis
XIV., whose arms were already enfeebled by foreign war. At
last, through the Mediation of England, the great monarch made
terms with his Protestant rebels, and the civil war was ended.
{Merlin, article, Ministre,)
Intervention, more often armed than unarmed, showed itself in
the middle of the last century. All decency was set aside when
Frederick of Prussia, Catharine of Russia, and Maria Theresa of
Austria, invaded and partitioned Poland, under the pretext of
suppressing anarchy. Here was Intervention with a vengeance,
and on the side of arbitrary power. But such is human incon-
sisteticy, there was almost at the same time, another Intervention
in the opposite direction. It was the Armed Intervention of
Prance, followed by that of Spain and Holland, in behalf of
American Independence. But Spain began Intervention here by an
offer of Mediation, with a truce, which was accepted by France on
condition that meanwhile the United States should be independent
in fact, {Martens Nouvelles Causes Celebres, Vol. i. p. 434.)
Then came. In 1788, the Armed Intervention of Prussia, to sustain
an illiberal faction in Holland, which was followed afterwards by the
compact between Great Britain, Prussia, and Holland, known as
the Triple Alliance, which began the business of its copartnership
by an Armed Intervention to reconcile the insurgent provinces of
Belgium to the German Emperor and their ancient Constitution.
As France began to be shaken by domestic troubles. Mediation in
her affairs was occasionally proposed. Among the papers of
Burke is a draft of a Memorial written in 1791, in the name of
the Government, offering what he calls " this healing mediation."
Then came the vast coalition for Armed Intervention in France to
put down the Republic. But even this dreary cloud was for a
moment brightened by a British attempt in Parhament, through
successive debates, to institute an Intercession for Lafayette,
immured iji the dungeons of European despotism. " It is
reported," said one of the orators, " that America has solicited

34
the liberation of her unfortunate adopted fellow-citizen. Let
British magnanimity be called in aid of American gratitude, and
exhibit to mankind a noble proof, that wherever the principles of
genuine liberty prevail, they never fail to inspire sentiments of
generosity, feelings of humanity, and a detestation of oppression."
(Parliamentary History, Vol. xxxi. p. 38 ; Vol. xxxii. p. 1348.)
Meanwhile France, against which all Europe intervened, played
her part of Intervention, and the scene was Switzerland. In the
unhappy disputes between the aristocratic and democratic par
ties, by which this Republic had been distracted, French Mediation
had already become chronic, beginning in 1738, when it found a
partial apology in the invitation of several of the Cantons and of
the government of Geneva ; occurring again in 1768, and again
in 1782. The mountain Republic, breathing the air of Freedom,
was naturally moved by the convulsions of the French Revolu
tion. Civil war ensued, and grew in bitterness. At last, when
France herself was composed under the powerful arm of the First
Consul, we find him turning to compose the troubles of Switzer
land. He was a military ruler, and always acted under the
instincts of military power. By an address, dated at the palace
of St. Cloud, Bonaparte declared that, already for three years the
Swiss had been slaying each other, and that, if left to themselves,
they would continue to slay each other for three years more,
without coming to any understanding ; that, at first, he had
resolved not to interfere in their affairs, but that he now changed
his mind, and announced himself as the Mediator of their diffi
culties, proclaiming, confidently, that his Mediation would be
efficacious as became the great people in whose name he spoke.
{Garden Histoire des Traites de Paix, Yo\. viii. p. 21.) Deputies
from the Cantons, together with all the chief citizens, were sum
moned to Paris, in order to declare the means of restoring the
union, securing peace and reconciling all parties. Of course,
this was Armed Mediation; but Switzerland was weak and France
was strong, while the declared object was union, peace and recon
ciliation. I know not if all this was accomplished, but the civil
war was stifled, and the constitution was established by what is
entitled in history, the Act of Mediation.
From that period down to the present moment. Intervention in
the internal affairs of other nations has been a prevailing practice,
now cautiously and peaceably ; now offensively and forcibly.-
Sometimes it was against the rights of men ; sometimes it was in
their favor. Sometimes England and Prance stood aloof ; some
times they took part. The Congress of Vienna, which undertook
to settle the map of Europe, organized a universal and perpetual
Intervention in the interest of monarchical institutions and exist
ing dynasties. This compact was renewed at the Congress of
Aix la Chapelle, in 1818, with the explanatory declaration that
the five great Powers would never assume jurisdiction over ques-

35
tions concerning the rights and interests of another Power, except
at its request and without inviting such Power to take part in the
conference. But this concession was obviously adverse to any
liberal movement. Meanwhile the Holy Alliance was formed
specially to watch and control the revolutionary tendencies of the
age ; but into this combination England, to her honor, declined
to enter. The other Powers were sufficiently active. Austria,
Russia and Prussia, did not hesitate at the Congress of Laybach,
in 1840, to institute an Armed Intervention for the suppression of
liberal principles in Naples ; and again two years later, at the
Congress of Verona, these same Powers, together with France,
instituted another Armed Intervention to suppress liberal princi
ples in Spain, which ultimately led to the invasion of that king
dom and the overthrow of its constitution. France was the bellig
erent agent, and would not be turned aside, although the Duke
of Wellington at Verona and Mr. Canning at home, sought to
arrest her armies by the Mediation of Great Britain, which Medi
ation was directly sought by Spain and directly refused by France.
The British Government, in admirable letters, composed with
unsurpassed skill and constituting a noble page of International
Law, disclaimed for itself and denied to other Powers the right
to require changes in the internal institutions of Independent
States, with the menace of hostile attack in case of refusal; and
it bravely declared to the Imperial and Royal Interventionists,
that " so long as the struggles and disturbances of Spain should
be confined within the circle of her own territory, they could not
be admitted by the British Government to afford any plea for
foreign interference," and in still another note it repeated that
" a menace of direct and imminent danger could alone, in excep
tion to the general rule, justify foreign interference," (Philli-
more's International Law, Vol. iii. pp. 757-66.) These were the
words of Mr. Canning ; but even Lord Castlereagh, in an earlier
note, had asserted the same limitation, which at a later day had
the unqualified support of Lord Grey and also of Lord Aberdeen.
Justly interpreted they leave no apology for Armed Intervention
except in a case of direct and imminent danger, when a nation,
like an individual, may be thrown upon the great right of self-
defence. But Great Britain bore testimony by what she did, as well as
by what she refused to do. Even while resisting the Armed Inter
vention of the great conspiracy, her Government intervened some
times by Mediation and sometimes by arms. Early in the contest
between Spain and her Colonies, she consented on the invitation
of Spain to act as Mediator, in the hope of effecting a reconcilia
tion; but Spain declined the Mediation which she had invited.
From 1812 to 1823 Great Britain constantly repeated her offer.
In the case of Portugal she went further. Under the counsels of
Mr, Canning, whose speech on the occasion was of the most

36
memorable character, she intervened by landing troops at Lisbon ;
but this Intervention was vindicated by the obligations of treaty.
Next came the greater instance of Greece, when the Christian
Powers of Europe intervened to arrest a protracted struggle and
to save this classic land from Turkish tyranny. Here the first
step was a pressing invitation from the Greeks to the British and
French governments for their Mediation with the Ottoman Porte.
These Powers together with Russia proffered the much desired
Intervention, which the Greeks at once accepted and the Turks
rejected. Battle had already raged fiercely, accompanied by bar
barous massacre. Without delay, the Allied forces were directed
to compel the cessation of hostilities, which was accomplished by
the destruction of the Turkish fleet at Navarino and the occu
pation of the Morea by French troops. At last, under the
continued Mediation of these Powers, the independence of Greece
was recognized by the Ottoman Porte, and another Free State,
consecrated to Freedom, took its place in the Family of Nations,
But Mediation in Turkish affairs did not stop here. The example
of Greece was followed by Egypt, whose provincial chief Mehemet
Ali rebelled, and, by a genius for war, succeeded in dispossessing
the Ottoman Porte not only of Egypt, but of other possessions
also. This civil war was first arrested l3y temporary arrangement
at Kutoyah in 1833, under the Mediation of Great Britain and
France, and, finally ended by an Armed Mediation in 1840, when,
after elaborate and irritating discussions, which threatened to
involve Europe, a Treaty was concluded at London between Great
Britain, Russia, Austria and Prussia, by which the Pacha was
compelled to relinquish some of his conquests, while he was
secured in the government of Egypt, as a perpetual vassal of the
Porte. France dissatisfied with the terms of this adjustment stood
aloof from the Treaty, which found its apology, such as it had,
first, in the invitation of the Sultan and secondly, in the desire
to preserve the integrity of the Turkish empire as essential to the
balance of power and the peace of Europe ; to which reasons may
also be added the desire to stop the effusion of blood.
Even before the Eastern questions were settled, other compli
cations had commenced in Western Europe. Belgium, restless
from the French Revolution of 1830, rose against the House of
Orange and claimed her Independence. Civil war ensued ; but
the Great Powers promptly intervened, even to the extent of
arresting a Dutch army on its march. Beginning with an armis
tice, there was a long and fine-spun negotiation, which, assuming
the guise alternately of a pacific Mediation and of an Armed In
tervention, ended at last in the established separation of Belgium
from Holland, and its Recognition as an Independent Nation. Do
you ask why Great Britain intervened on this occasion ? Lord
John Russell, in the course of debate at a subsequent day, declared
that a special motive was " the establishment of a free constitu-

37
tion." (Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, 3d series. Vol. xciii. p.
417-66— House of Commons, July 11, 1847.) Meanwhile the penin
sula of Spain and Portugal was torn by civil war. The regents of
these two kingdoms respectively appealed to Great Britain and
France for aid, especially in the expulsion of the pretender Don
Carlos from Spain, and the pretender Don Miguel from Portugal.
For this purpose the Quadruple AUiance of these Powers was
formed in 1834. The moral support derived from this Treaty is
said to have been important ; but Great Britain was compelled to
provide troops. This Intervention, however, was at the solicita
tion of the actual governments. Even after the Spanish troubles
were settled the war still lingered in the sister kingdom, when in
1847, the Queen appealed to Great Britain, the ancient patron of
Portugal, to mediate between herself and her insurgent subjects,
and the task was accepted, in the declared hope of composing the
difficulties in a just and permanent manner " with all due regard
to the dignity of the Crown on the one hand and the Constitu
tional liberties of the Nation on the other." The insurgents did
not submit until after mihtary demonstrations. But peace and
liberty were the two watchwords here.
Then occurred the European uprising of 1848. Prance was
once more a Republic ; but Europe wiser grown did not interfere
in her affairs, even so much as to write a letter. .But the case
was different with Hungary, whose victorious armies, radiant with
liberty regained, expelled the Austrian power only to be arrested
by the Armed Intervention of the Russian Czar, who yielded to the
double pressure of an invitation from Austria and a fear that suc
cessful insurrection might extend into Poland. It was left for
France at the same time in another country, with a strange incon
sistency, to play the part which Russia had played in Hungary.
Rome, which had risen against the temporal power of the Pope,
and proclaimed the Republic, was occupied by a French army,
which expelled the republican magistrates, and, though fifteen
years have already passed since that unhappy act, the occupation
still continues. From this military Intervention Great Britain
stood aloof. In a despatch, dated at London January 28, 1849,
Lord Palmerston has made a permanent record to the honor of his
country. His words are as follows : " Her Majesty's Government
would upon every account, and not only upon abstract principle,
but with reference to the general interests of Europe, and from
the value which they attach to the maintenance of peace, sincerely
deprecate any attempt to settle the differences between the Pope
and his subjects by the military interference of foreign Powers."
(Phillimore, International Law, Vol. ii. p. 676.) But he gave
further point to the whole position of Great Britain, in contrast
with France, when he said, " Armed Intervention to assist in retain
ing a bad government would be unjustifiable," (Ibid, 448.) Such
was the declaration of the Lord Palmerston of that day. But

38
how much more unjustifiable must be assistance to found a bad
government, as is now proposed. The British Minister insisted
that the differences should be accommodated by " the diplomatic
interposition of friendly Powers," which he declared a much better
mode of settlement than an authoritative imposition of terms by
foreign arms. In harmony with this policy Great Britain during
this same year united with France in proffering Mediation between
the insurgent Sicihans and the King of Naples, the notorious
Bomba, in the hope of helping the cause of good government and
liberal principles. Not disheartened by rebuff, these two govern
ments in 1856 united in a friendly remonstrance to the same
tyrannical sovereign against the harsh system of political arrests
which he maintained, and against his cruelty to good citizens thrust
without any trial into the worst of prisons. The advice was
indignantly rejected, and the two governments that gave it at
once withdrew their Ministers from Naples. The sympathy of
Russia was on the wrong side, and Prince Gortschakoff, while
admitting that " as a consequence of friendly forethought, one
government might give advice to another," declared in a circular
that " to endeavor by threats or a menacing demonstration, to
obtain from the King of Naples concessions in the internal affairs
of his government, is a violent usurpation of his authority, and
an open declaration of the strong over the weak." This was
practically ariswered by Lord Clarendon, speaking for Great Brit
ain at the Congress of Paris, when, admitting the principle that
no government has the right to intervene in the internal affairs of
other nations, he declared that there were cases where an excep
tion to this rule becomes equally a right and a duty ; that peace
must not be broken, but that there was no peace without justice,
and that, therefore, the Congress must let the King of Naples
know its desire for an amelioration of his system of government,
and must demand of hirn an amnesty for political offenders suffer
ing without a trial. This language was bold beyond the practice
of diplomacy ; but the Intervention which it proposed was on the
side of humanity.
But I must draw this part of the discussion to a close, although
the long list of instances is not yet exhausted. Even while I
speak, we hear of Intervention by England and France, in the
civil war between the Emperor of China and his subjects ; and
also in that other war between the Emperor of Russia on the one
side and the Poles whom he claims as subjects on the other side ;
but with this difference, that, in China these Powers have taken
the part of the existing government, while in Poland they have
intervened against the existing government. In the face of posi
tive declarations of neutrality the British and French Admirals
have united their forces with the Chinese ; but thus far in Poland
although there has been no declaration of neutrality, the Inter
vention has been unarmed. In both these instances we witness

39
the same tendency, directed, it may be, by the interests or preju
dices of the time, and so far as it has yet proceeded, it is at least
in Poland on the side of liberal institutions. But alas ! for
human consistency — the French Emperor is now intervening in
Mexico with armies and navies, to build a throne for an Austrian
Archduke. British Intervention against Slavery,
But there is one long-continued Intervention by Great Britain,
which speaks now with controlling power ; and it is on this ac
count that I have reserved it for the close of what I have to say
on this head. Though not without original shades of dark, it has
for more than half a century been a shining example to the civil
ized world. I refer to that Intervention against Slavery, which
from its first adoption has been so constant and brilliant as to
make us forget the earlier Intervention for Slavery, when, for
instance. Great Britain at the peace of Utrecht intervened to ex
tort the detestable privilege of supplying slaves to Spanish Amer
ica at the rate of 4,800 yearly for the space of thirty years, and
then again at the peace of Aix la Chapelle higgled for a yet longer
sanction to this ignoble Intervention ; nay it almost makes us
forget the kindred Intervention, at once most sordid and criminal,
by which this Power counteracted all efforts for the prohibition of
the slave-trade even in its own colonies, and thus helped to fasten
Slavery upon Virginia and Carolina. The abolition of the slave-
trade by act of Parliament in 1807 was the signal for a change of
history. But curiously, it was the whites who gained the first fruits of
this change by a triumphant Intervention for the suppression of
Christian Slavery in the Barbary States. The old hero of Acre,
Sir Sidney Smith, released from his long imprisonment in Prance,
sought to organize a " holy league " for this Intervention ; the
subject was discussed at the Congress of Vienna ; and the agents
of Spain and Portugal, anxious for the punishment of their pirat
ical neighbors argued that, because Great Britain had abolished
for itself the traffic in African slaves, therefore it must see that
whites were no longer enslaved in the Barbary States. The argu
ment was less logical than humane. But Great Britain under
took the work. With a fleet complete at all points, consisting of
five line-of-battle ships, five heavy frigates, four bomb-vessels, and
five gun-brigs. Lord Bxmouth approached Algiers, where he was
joined by a considerable Dutch fleet, anxious to take part in this
Intervention. " If force must be resorted to " said the Admiral
in his General Orders, " we have the consolation of knowing that
we fight in the sacred cause of humanity and cannot fail of suc
cess." A single day was enough — with such a force in such a
cause. The formidable castles of the great Slave-monger were

40
battered to pieces, and he was compelled to sign a Treaty, con
firmed under a salute of twenty-one guns, which in its first
article stipulated " The Abolition of Christian Slavery forever."
Glorious and beneficent Intervention ! — Not inferior to that re
nowned instance of antiquity, where the Carthaginians Were
required to abolish the practice of sacrificing their own children ;
a Treaty which has been called the noblest of history, because it
was stipulated in favor of human nature. The Admiral, who
had thus triumphed, was hailed as an Emancipator. He received
a new rank in the peerage, and a new blazonry on his coat of
arms. The rank is of course continued in his family, and on
their shield, in perpetual memory of this great transaction, is still
borne a Christian slave holding aloft the cross and dropping his
broken fetters. But the personal satisfactions of the Admiral
were more than rank or heraldry. In his despatch to the Gov
ernment, describing the, battle and written at the time, he says :
" To have been one of the humble instruments in the handsof
Di\'ine Providence for bringing to reason a ferocious government
and destroying forever the insufferable and horrid system of
Christian Slavery, can never cease to be a source of delight and
heartfelt comfort to every individual happy enough to be employed
in it." (Osier's Life of Exmouth, pp. 297, 334, 432.)
But I have said too much with regard to an instance, which,
though beautiful and important, may be regarded only as a paren
thesis in the grander and more extensive Intervention against
African Slavery, which was already organizing, destined at last to
embrace the whole Human Family. Even before Wilberforce
triumphed in Parliament, Great Britain intervened with Napo
leon, in 1806, to induce him to join in the abolition of the slave-
trade ; but he flatly refused. What France would not then yield,
was extorted from Portugal in 1810 ; from Sweden shortly after
wards ; and from Denmark in 1814. An ineffectual attempt was
made to enlist Spain, even by the temptation of pecuniary subsi
dies ; and also to enlist the restored monarch of Prance, Louis
XVIII. even by the offer of a sum of money outright or the
cession of a West India Island, in consideration of the desired
abolition. Had gratitude to a benefactor prevailed, these Powers
could not have resisted ; but it was confessed by Lord Castlereagh,
in the House of Commons, that there was a distrust of the Brit
ish Government " even among the better classes of people," who
thought that its zeal in this behalf was prompted by a desire to
injure the French Colonies and commerce, rather than by benevo
lence. But he was more successful with Portugal, which Power
was induced, by pecuniary equivalents, to execute a Supplemen
tary Treaty in January, 1815. This was followed by the declara
tion of the Congress of Vienna, on motion of Lord Castlereagh,
16th February, 1815, denouncing the African slave-trade " as
inconsistent with the principles of humanity and universal benev-

41
olence." Meanwhile Napoleon returned from Elba, and what the
British Intervention failed to acoomphsh with the Bourbon Mon
arch, and what the Emperor had once flatly refused, was now
spontaneously done by him, doubtless in the hope of conciliat
ing British sentiment. His hundred days of power were signal
ized by an ordinance abolishing the slave-trade in Prance and her
colonies. Louis XVIII. once again restored by British arms and
with the shadow of Waterloo upon France, could not do less than
ratify this imperial ordinance by a royal assurance that " the
traffic was henceforth forever forbidden to all the subjects of his
most Christian Majesty." Holland came under the same influ
ence and accepted the restitution of her colonies, except the Cape
of Good Hope and Guiana, on condition of the entire abolition of
the slave-trade in the restored colonies and also everywhere else
beneath her flag. Spain was the most indocile; but this proud
monarchy, under whose auspices the African slave-trade first carae
into being, at last yielded. By the Treaty of Madrid, of 22d
September, 1817, extorted by Great Britain, it stipulated the
immediate abolition of the trade north of the Equator, and
also, after 1820, its abolition everywhere, in consideration of
£400,000, the price of Freedom, to be paid by the other contract
ing party. In vindication of this Intervention, Wilberforce declared
in Parliament that, " the grant to Spain would be more than
repaid to Great Britain in commercial advantages by the opening
of a great continent to British, industry," — all of which was
impossible if the slave-trade was allowed to continue under the
Spanish flag.
At the Congress of Aix la Chapelle in 1818, and of Verona in
1822, Great Britain continued her system of Intervention against
Slavery. Her primacy in, this cause was recognized by European
Powers. It was the comraon reraark of continental publicists
that she " raade the cause her own." (1 Philliraore Interna
tional Law, 330.) One of them portrays her vividly " since 1810
waging incessant war against the principle of the slave-trade, and
by this crusade, undertaken in the name of Humanity, making
herself the declared protectress of the African race." ( Cu..ssy,
Causes Celebres de Droit Maritime, Vol. i. p. 157, Vol. ii. pp.
362, 63.) These are the words of a French authority. Accord
ing to hira, it is nothing less than " an incessant war " aud a
" crusade," which she has waged and the position which she has
achieved is that of " Protectress of the African race." In this
character she has not been content with iraposing her raagnani-
mous system upon the civilized world, but she has carried it
among the tribes and chiefs of Africa, who by this omnipresent
Intervention, were summoned to renounce a barbarous and crim
inal custom. By a Parliamentary Report, it appears that in
1850, there were twenty-four treaties in force, between Great
Britain and foreign civilized Powers, for the suppression of the

42
slave-trade, and also forty-two similar treaties between Great
Britain and native chiefs of Africa.
But this Intervention was not only by treaties ; it was also by
correspondence and circulars. And here I approach a part of the
subject which illustrates the vivacity of this Intervention. All
British ministers and consuls were so many pickets on constant
guard in the out-posts where they resided. They were held to
every service by which the cause could be promoted, even to
translating and printing documents against the slave-trade, espe
cially in countries where unhappily it was still pursued. There
was the Pope's Bull of 1839, which Lord Palmerston did not hesi
tate to transmit for this purpose to his agents in Cuba, Brazil,
and even in Turkey, some of whom were unsuccessful in their
efforts to obtain its publication, although, curiously enough, it
was published in Turkey. {Parliamentary Papers, 1841, Vol. xxx.
Slave Trade, Class B, p. 34, 197, 223 ; Class C, p. 73, Class D,
p. 15.)
Such a zeal could not stop at the abolition of the traffic-
Accordingly Great Britain, by Act of Parliament in 1834 enfran.
chised all the slaves in her own possessions, and thus again
secured to herself the primacy of a lofty cause.- The Inter
vention was now openly declared to be against Slavery itself.
But it assumed its most positive character while Lord Palmerston
was Foreign Secretary, and I say this sincerely to his great honor.
Throughout his long life, among all the various concerns in which
he has acted, there is nothing which will be remerabered hereafter
with such gratitude. By his diplomacy her Majesty's Govern
ment constituted itself into a vast Abolition Society with the
whole world for its field. It was in no respect behind the faraous
World's Convention against Slavery, .held at London in June,
1840, with Thomas Clarkson, the pioneer Abolitionist, as Presi
dent ; for the strongest declarations of this Convention were
adopted expressly by Lord Palmerston as " the sentiments of her
Majesty's Government," and communicated officially to all British
functionaries in foreign lands. The Convention declared " the
utter injustice of Slavery in all its forms ; and the evil it inflicted
upon its miserable victiras ; and the necessity of eraploying every
means, moral, pacific, and religious, for its coraplete abolition —
an object most dear to the members of the Convention, and for
the consummation of which they are especially assembled."
These words became the words of the British Government, and,
in circular letters, were sent over the world. {Parliamentary
Papers, 1841, Vol. xxx. Class B, p. 33.)
But it was not enough to declare the true principles. They
must be enforced. Spain and Portugal hung back. The Secre
tary of the Anti-Slavery Society Vas sent " to endeavor to create
in these countries a public feeling in favor of the abolition of
Slavery," and the British Minister at Lisbon was desired by Lord

43
Palmerston "to afford all the assistance and protection in his power
for proraoting the object of his journey." {Ibid, p. 128.) British
officials in foreign countries sometimes back-shded. This was
corrected by another circular addressed to all the four quarters
of the globe, setting forth, "-that it would be unfitting that any
officer, holding an appointment under the British Government
should, either directly or indirectly, hold or be interested in slave
property." The Parliamentary Papers, which attest the univer
sality of this instruction, show the corapleteness with which it was
executed. The consul at Rio Janeiro, in slave-holding Brazil,
had araong his doraestics three negro slaves, " one a groom and
the other a waiter and a woman he was forced to hire as a nurse
to his children;" but he discharged them at once under the Anti-
Slavery discipline of the British Foreign office, and Lord Palmers
ton in a formal despatch " expresses his satisfaction." {Ibid,
1842, Vol. xlvih. Class B, p. 732.) In Cuba, at the time of the
reception there was not a single resident officer holding under its
British Crown " who was entirely free from the charge of counte
nancing Slavery." But only a few days afterwards, it was
officially reported, that there was " not a single British officer
residing there who had not relinquished or was not at least
preparing to relinquish the odious practice." {Ibid, p. 206.)
This was quick work. Thus was the practice according to the
rule. Every person, holding an office under the British govern
ment, was constrained to set his face against Slavery, and the way
was by having nothing to do with it, even in employing or hiring
the slave of another ; nothing, directly or indirectly.
But Lord Palmerston, acting in the name of the British Gov
ernment, did not stop with changing British officials into practi
cal Abolitionists whenever they were in foreign countries. He
sought to enlist other European governments in the same policy,
and to this end requested them to forbid all their functionaries,
residing in slave-holding communities, to be interested in slave
property or in any holding or hiring of slaves. Denmark for a
moment hesitated, from an unwillingness to debar its officers in
slave countries from acting according to the laws where they
resided, when the minister at once cited in support of his request,
the example of Belgium, Holland, Sweden, Naples and Portugal,
all of which without delay had yielded to this British Interven
tion ; and Denmark ranged herself in the list. {Ibid, p. 42.
Vol. xliv. Class C, pp. 7-15.) Nor was this indefatigable Propa
ganda confined in its operations to the Christian Powers. With a
sacred pertinacity it reached into distant Mohammedan regions,
where Slavery was imbedded not only in the laws, but in the
habits, the social system, and the very life of the people, and
called upon the Government to act against it. No irapediraent
stood in the way ; no prejudice, national or religious. To the
Sqhah of Persia, ruling a vast, outlying slave empire. Lord Pal-

44
merston announced the desire of the British Government " to see '
the condition of Slavery abolished in every part of the world ; "
" that it conceived much good might be accomphshed even in
Mohammedan countries by steady perseverance and by never omit
ting to take advantage of favorable opportunities," and " that the
Schah would be doing a thing extremely acceptable to the British
Government and nation if he would issue a decree making it
penal for a Persian to purchase slaves." {Ibid, 1842, Vol. xliv.
Class D, p. 70.) To the Sultan of Turkey, whose mother was a
slave, whose wives were all slaves, and whose very counsellors,
generals and admirals were originally slaves, he made a similar
appeal, and he sought to win the dependent despot by reminding
him that only in this way could he hope for that good will which
was so essential to his government ; " that the continued support
of Great Britain will for some years to come be an object of
importance to the Porte ; that this support cannot be given effect
ually unless the sentiments and opinions of the majority of th€
British nation shall be favorable to the Turkish Government, and
that the whole of the British nation unanimously desire beyond
almost any thing else to put an end to the practice of making
slaves." {Ibid, 1841, Vol. xxx. Class D, pp. 15-18 ; also, Ibid,
1842, Vol. xliv. Class D, p. 73.) Such at that time was the voice
of the British people. Since Cromwell pleaded for the Vaudois,
no nobler voice had gone forth. The World's Convention against
Slavery saw itself transfigured, while platform speeches were trans
fused into diplomatic notes. The Convention, earnest for Uni
versal Eraancipation, declared that " the friendly interposition of
Great Britain could he employed for no nobler purpose ; " and, as
if to crown its work, in an address to Lord Palmerston, humbly
and earnestly implored his lordship " to use his high authority for
connecting the overthrow of slavery with the consolidation of
peace ; " and all these words were at once adopted in foreign
despatches as expressing the sentiments of Her Majesty's Gov
ernment. {Ibid, 1841, Vol. xxx. Class D, pp. 15, 16.) Better
watch-words there could not be, nor any more worthy of the
British name. There can be no consolidation of peace vnthout
the overthroio of Slavery, This is as true now as when first
uttered. Therefore is Great Britain still bound to her original
faith ; nor can she abandon the cause of which she was the
declared Protectress without the betrayal of Peace, as well as the
betrayal of Liberty.
But even now while I speak this same conspicuous fidelity to a
sacred cause is announced by the recent arrivals from Europe.
The ship canal across the Isthmus of Suez, first atterapted by the
early Pharaohs, and at last undertaken by French influence under
the auspices of the Pacha of Egypt, is raost zealously opposed by
Great Britain — for the declared reason, that in its construction
" forced labor " is eraployed, which this Power cannot in con-

45
science sanction. Not even to coraplete this vast improvement,
bringing the East and the West near together, for which mankind
has waited throughout long centuries, will Great Britain depart
from the rule which she has so gloriously declared. Slavery is
wrong ; therefore it cannot be employed. The canal must stop
if it cannot be built without " forced labor."
General Principles applicable to Intervention,
And here I close the historic instances which illustrate the
right and practice of Foreign Intervention. The whole subject
will be seen in these instances, teaching clearly what to avoid
and what to follow. In this way the Law of Nations, like history,
gives its best lessons. But, for the sake of plainness, I now
gather up some of the conclusions.
Foreign Intervention is armed or unarmed, although soraetimes
the two are not easily distinguishable. An unarmed Intervention
may have in it the menace of arms, or it may be war in disguise.
If this is the case, it must be treated accordingly.
Armed Intervention is war and nothing less. Of course it can
be vindicated only as war, and it must be resisted as war.
Believing as I do, most profoundly, that war can never be a game,
but must always be a crime when it ceases to be a duty ; a crime
to be shunned if it be not a duty to be performed swiftly and
surely ; and that a nation, like an individual, is not perraitted to
take the sword, except in just self-defence — I find the sarae lim
itation in Armed Intervention, which becomes unjust invasion just
in proportion as it departs frora just self-defence. Under this
head is naturally included all that Intervention which is raoved
by a tyrannical or interraeddling spirit, because such Intervention,
whatever may be its professions, is essentially hostile ; as when
Russia, Prussia and Austria, partitioned Poland ; when the Holy
Alliance intermeddled everywhere, and menaced even Araerica ;
or when Russia intervened to crush the independence of Hungary,
or France to crush the Roman Republic. All such Intervention
is illegal, inexcusable and scandalous. Its vindication can be
found only in the effrontery that might makes right.
Unarmed Intervention is of a different character. If sincerely
unarmed, it may be regarded as obtrusive, but not hostile. It
may assurae the form of Mediation, or the proffer of good offices,
at the invitation of both parties, or, in the case of civil war, at
the invitation of the original authority. With such invitation,
this Intervention is proper and honorable. Without such invita
tion it is of doubtful character. But if known to be contrray to
the desires of both parties, or to the desires of the original
authority in a distracted country, it becoraes offensive and inad-

46
missible, unless obviously on the side of Human Rights, when
the act of Intervention takes its character frora the cause iu which
it is raade. But it must not be forgotten that, in the case of a
civil war, any Mediation, or indeed, any proposition which does
not enjoin submission to the original authority, is in its nature
adverse to that authority, for it assumes to a certain extent the
separate existence of the other party, and secures for it temporary
immunity and opportunity, if not independence. Congress,
therefore, was right in declaring to Foreign Powers, that any
renewed effort of mediation in our affairs will be regarded as an
unfriendly act.
There is another case of unarmed Intervention, which I cannot
criticise. It is where a nation intercedes or interposes in favor
of Huraan Rights, or to secure the overthrow of sorae enorraous
wrong, as where Cromwell pleaded, with noble intercession, for
the secluded Protestants of the Alpine valleys ; where Great
Britain and France declared their sympathy with the Greeks
struggling for Independence, and where Great Britain alone,
by an untiring diplomacy, set herself against Slavery everywhere
throughout the world.
The wliole lesson on this head may be suramed up briefly. All
Intervention in the internal affairs of another nation is contrary
to law and reason, and can be vindicated only by overruling
necessity. If you intervene by war, then must there be the
necessity of self-defence. If you intervene by Mediation or Inter
cession, then must you be able to speak in behalf of civihzation
endangered or human nature insulted. But there is no Power
which is bound to this humane pohcy so absolutely as England ;
especially is there none which is so fixed beyond the possibility of
retreat or change in its opposition to Slavery, whatever shape it
may assurae — whether it be the animating principle of a nation —
the "forced labor" of a multitude — or even the service of a
solitary domestic. [IIl.J
Intervention by Recognition.
There is a species of Poreign Intervention, which stands by
itself, and has its own illustrations. Therefore, I speak of it by
itself. It is where a Foreign Power undertakes to acknowledge
the independence of a colony or province which has renounced its
original allegiance, and it may be compendiously called Interven
tion by Recognition, Recognition alone is strictly applicable to
the act of the original government, renouncing aU claim of alle
giance and at last acknowledging the Independence which has
been in dispute. But it is an act of Intervention only where a
Foreign Govemraent steps between the two parties. Of course,
the original government is so far master of its position, that it may

47
select its own tirae in making this Recognition. But the question
arises at what time and under what circumstances can this Recog
nition be made by.a Foreign Power. It is obvious that a Recogni
tion proper at one time and under special circumstances would
not be proper at another and under different circumstances.
Mr. Canning said with reference to Spanish America, that " if he
piqued himself upon any thing it was upon the subject of time,"
and he added that there were two ways of proceeding, " one went
recklessly and with a hurried course to the object, which, though
soon reached, might be almost as soon lost, and the other was by
a course so strictly guarded that no principle was violated and
no offence given to other Powers." (Hansard's Parliamentary
Debates, 2d Series, Vol. xh. p. 7, 8.) These are words of wise
statesmanship, and they present the practical question which
must occur in every case of Recognition. What condition of the
controversy will justify this Intervention ?
And here again the whole matter can be best explained by
historic instances. The earliest case is that of Switzerland which
led the way, as long ago as 1307, by breaking off from the House
of Hapsburg, whose original cradle was in a Swiss Canton. But
Austria did not acknowledge the Independence of the Repubhc
until the peace of Westphalia, more than three centuries and a
half after the struggle began under William Tell. Meanwhile
the Cantons had lived through the vicissitudes of war foreign and
domestic, and had formed treaties with other Powers, including
the Pope. Before Swiss Independence was acknowledged, the
Dutch conflict began under William of Orange. Smarting under
intolerable grievances and with a price set upon the head of their
illustrious Stadholder, the United Provinces of the Netherlands
in 1572 renounced the tyrannical sovereignty of Philip II. , and
declared themselves independent. In the history of Freedom this
is an important epoch. They were Protestants, battling for rights
denied, and Queen Elizabeth of England, who was the head of
Protestantism, acknowledged their Independence and shortly after
wards gave to it military aid. The contest continued, sustained
on the side of Spain by the genius of Parma and Spinola, and on
the side of the infant Republic by the youthful talent of Maurice,
son of the great Stadholder ; nor did Poreign Powers stand aloof.
In 1594, Scotland, which was Protestant also, under James VI.,
afterwards the first James of England, treated with the insurgent
Provinces as successors of the Houses of Burgundy and Austria,
and in 1596 Prance also entered into alhance with thera. But
the claims of Spain seemed undying ; for it was not until the
peace of Westphalia, nearly eighty years after the revolt, and
nearly seventy years after the Declaration of Independence, that
this Power consented to the Recognition of Dutch Independence.
Nor does this example stand alone even at that early day.
Portugal in 1640 also broke away from Spain and declared herself

48
independent, under the Duke of Braganza as King. A year had
scarcely passed when Charles I. of England negotiated a treaty
with the new sovereign. The contest had already ceased but not
the claira ; for it was only after twenty-six years that Spain made
this other Recognition.
Traversing the Atlantic Ocean in space and more than a century
in time, I come to the next historic instance which is so inter
esting to us all, while as a precedent it dominates the whole
question. The long discord between the colonies and the raother
country broke forth in blood on the 19th April, 1775. Indepen
dence was declared on the 4th July, 1776. Battles ensued ; Tren
ton, Princeton, Brandywine, Saratoga, followed by the winter of
Valley Forge. The contest was yet undecided, when on the 6th Feb
ruary, 1778, France entered into a Treaty of Araity and Commerce
with the United States, containing, among other things, a Recogni
tion of their Independence, with rautual stipulations between the
two parties to protect the commerce of the other, by convoy on
the ocean, "against all attacks, force and violence;" {Statutes at
Large, Vol. viii. p. 16,) and this Treaty on the 15th March was
communicated to the British Government by the French Ambas
sador at London, with a diplomatic note in which the United
States are described as "in full possession of the Independence
pronounced by the Act of 4th July, 1776," and the British Gov
ernment is warned that the King of France, " in order to protect
effectively the legitimate commerce of his subjects and to sus
tain the honor of his flag, has taken further measures With the
United States." — {Martens Nouvelles Causes Celebres, Vol. i. p.
406.) A further Treaty of Alliance, whose declared object was
the maintenance of the Independence of the United States, had
been signed on the same day ; but this was not communicated ;
nor is there any evidence that it was known to the British Govern
ment at the time. The communication of the other was enough ;
for it was in itself an open Recognition of the new Power, with a
promise of protection to its commerce on the ocean, while the war
was yet flagrant between the two parties. As such it must be
regarded as an Armed Recognition, constituting in itself a bellig
erent act — aggravated and explained by the circumstances under
which it was made — the warning, in the nature of a menace,
by which it was accompanied — the clandestine preparations by
which it was preceded — and the corsairs to cruise against British
commerce, which for some time had been allowed to swarm
under the American flag from French ports. It was so accepted
by the British Government. The British Minister was summa
rily withdrawn from Paris ; all French vessels in British harbors
were seized, and on the 17th March a message from the king
was brought down to Parliament, which was in the nature of a
declaration of war against Prance. In this declaration there
was no allusion to any thing but the Treaty of Amity and Com-

49
merce, officially communicated by the French Ambassador, which
was denounced by his majesty as an "unprovoked and unjust
aggression on the honor of his crown and the essential interests
of his kingdoms, contrary to the law of nations, and injurious to
the rights of every Foreign Power in Europe," Only three days
later, on the 21st March, the Coraraissioners of the United States
were received by the King of France, in solemn audience, with
all the pomp and ceremony accorded by the Court of Versailles
to the representatives of Sovereign Powers. War ensued between
France and Great Britain on land and sea, in which Holland and
Spain afterwards took part against Great Britain. With such
allies a just cause prevailed. Great Britain by Provisional
Articles, signed at Paris 30th Noveraber, 1782, acknowledged the
United States " to be free, sovereign and independent," and
declared the boundaries thereof.
The success of colonial Independence was contagious, and the
contest for it presented another historic instance raore discussed
and constituting a precedent, if possible, more interesting still.
This was when the Spanish Colonies in America, following the north
ern example, broke away from the mother country and declared
themselves independent. The contest began as early as 1810 ;
but it was long continued and extended over an immense region —
from New Mexico and California in the North to Cape Horn in
the South — washed by two vast oceans — traversed by mighty rivers
and divided by lofty mountains — fruitful in silver — capped with
snow and shooting with volcanic fire. At last the United States
satisfied that the ancient power of Spain had practically ceased to
exist, beyond a reasonable chance of restoration, and that the
contest was ended, acknowledged the Independence of Mexico and
five other provinces. But this act was approached only after fre
quent debate in Congress, where Henry Clay took an eminent
part, and after most careful consideration in the cabinet, where
John Quincy Adams, as Secretary of State, shed upon the ques
tion all the light of his unsurpassed knowledge, derived from
long practice, as well as from laborious study, of International
Law. The judgment on this occasion must be regarded as an
authority. President Munroe in a Special Message, on the Sth
March, 1822 — twelve years after the war began — called the atten
tion of Congress to the state of the contest which he said " had
now reached such a stage and been attended with such decisive
success on the part of the provinces, that it merits the most
profound consideration whether their right to the rank of inde
pendent nations, with all the advantages incident to it, in their
intercourse with the United States, is not complete." After
setting forth the de facto condition of things, he proceeded ;
" Thus it is manifest that all these provinces are not only in
the full enjoyment of their independence, but, considering the
state of the war and other circumstances, that there is not the
i

50
most remote prospect of their being deprived of it," In proposing
their Recognition the President declared that it was done " under
a thorough conviction that it is in strict accord with the law of
nations," and further that " it is not contemplated to change
thereby, in the slightest manner, our friendly relations with either
of the parties." In accordance with this recommendation Con
gress authorized the Recognition. Two years later, the same
thing was done by Great Britain, after much debate diplomatic
and parliamentary. No case of International duty has been illus
trated by a clearer eloquence, an ampler knowledge or a purer
wisdom. The despatches were written by Mr. Canning, and
upheld by him in Parliament ; but Lord Liverpool took part in the
discussion — succinctly declaring, that there could be no right to
Recognition " while the contest was actually going on," a conclusion
which was cautiously but strongly enforced by Lord Lansdowne
and nobly vindicated in an Oration, reviewing the whole subject,
by that great publicist Sir James Mackintosh. {Mackintosh' s
Works Vol. iii. p. 438.) All inclined to Recognition but admitted
that it could not take place so long as the contest continued ; and
that there must be " such a contest as exhibits some equality of
force, so that if the combatants were left to themselves, the issue
would be in some degree doubtful." But the Spanish strength
throughout the whole continent was reduced to a single castle in
Mexico, an island on the coast of Chili, and a small army in
Upper Peru, while in Buenos Ayres no Spanish soldier had set
foot for fourteen years. "Is this a contest" said Mackintosh
" approaching to equality ? Is it sufficient to render the inde
pendence of such a country doubtful ? Does it deserve the name
of a contest ? " It was not until 1825 that Great Britain was so
far satisfied as to acknowledge this Independence. France fol
lowed in 1830 ; and Castilian pride relented in 1832, twenty-two
years from the first date of the contest.
The next instance is that of Greece, which declared itself Inde
pendent January 27, 1822. After a contest of more than five
years, with alternate success and disaster, the Great Powers inter
vened forcibly in 1827 ; but the final Recognition was postponed
till May 1832. Then carae the instance of Belgiura, which
declared itself Independent in October, 1830, and was promptly
recognized by the Great Powers who intervened foVcibly for this
purpose. The last instance is Texas, which declared its Indepen
dence in December, 1835, and defeated the Mexican Army under
Santa Anna, making him prisoner, in 1836. The power of Mexico
seemed to be overthrown, but Andrew Jackson, who was then
President of the United States, in his Message of December 21,
1836, laid down the rule of caution and justice on such an occa
sion, as follows ; " The acknowledgment of a new State as inde
pendent and entitled to a place in the family of nations, is at aU
times an act of great delicacy and responsibility; but more

51
especially so when such state has forcibly separated itself from
another, of which it had forraed an integral part and wiiich still
claims dominion over it. A premature recognition under these
circurastances, if not looked upon as justifiable cause of war, is
always liable to be regarded as a proof of an unfriendly spirit."
And he concluded by proposing that our country should " keep
aloof" until the question was decided " beyond cavil or dispute."
During the next year — when the contest had practically ceased
and only the claim remained — this new Power was acknowledged
by the United States, who were followed in 1840 by Great Britain,
France and Belgium. Texas was annexed to the United States
in 1845, but at this time Mexico had not joined in the general
recognition. Principles Applicable to Recognition,
Such are the historic instances which illustrate Intervention by
Recognition, As in other cases of Intervention, the Recognition
may be armed or unarmed, with an intermediate case, where the
Recognition may seem to be unarmed when in reality it is
armed, as when Prance simply announced its Recognition of the
Independence of the United States, and at the same time prepared
to maintain it by war.
Armed Recognition is simply Recognition by Coercion, It is a
belligerent act constituting war, and it can be vindicated only as
war. No nation will undertake it, unless ready to assume all the
responsibilities of war, as in the recent cases of Greece and Bel
gium, not to mention the Recognition of the United States by
Prance. But an attempt, under the guise of Recognition, to
coerce the dismemberraent or partition of a country is in its
nature offensive beyond ordinary war ; especially when the coun
try to be sacrificed is a Republic and the plotters against it are
crowned heads. Proceeding from the consciousness of brutal
power, such an attempt is an insult to mankind. If Armed
Recognition at any time can find apology, it will be only where
it is sincerely made for the protection of Human Rights, It
would be hard to condemn that Intervention which saved Greece
to Freedom. Unarmed Recognition is where a Poreign Power acknowledges
iu some pacific form the Independence of a colony or province
against the claim of its original Government. Although exclud
ing all idea of coercion, yet it cannot be uniformly justified.
No Recognition where the Contest is still pending.
And here we are brought to that question of " time," on which
Mr. Canning so pointedly piqued himself, and to which President
Jackson referred, when he suggested that " a premature Recog
nition" might be "looked upon as justifiable cause of war."

52
Nothing is raore clear than that Recognition raay be favored at
one time, while it must be rejected at another. So far as it
assumes to ascertain Rights instead of Facts, or to anticipate
the result of a contest, it is wrongful. No Nation can under
take to sit in judgment on the rights of another Nation with
out its consent. Therefore, it cannot declare that de jure a
colony or province is entitled to Independence ; but from the
necessity of the case and that international intercoi^rse may not
fail, it may ascertain the facts, carefully and wisely, and, on
the actual evidence, it may declare that de facto the colony or
province appears to be in possession of Independence, which
means, first, that the original Government is dispossessed beyond
the possibility of recovery, and secondly, that the new Govern
ment has achieved that reasonable stability with fixed limits
which gives assurance of a solid Power. All of this is simply
fact and nothing more. But just in proportion as a Poreign
Nation anticipates the fact, or imagines the fact, or substitutes its
own passions for the fact, it transcends the well-defined bounds
of International Law. Without the fact of Independence, posi
tive and fixed, there is nothing but a claim. Now nothing can be
clearer than that while the terrible litigation is still pending and
the Trial by Battle, to which appeal has been made, is yet unde
cided, the fact of Independence cannot exist. There is only a
paper Independence, which though reddened with blood, is no
better than a paper empire or a paper blockade, and any pretended
Recognition of it is a Wrongful Intervention, inconsistent with a
just neutrality, since the obvious effect must be to encourage
the insurgent party. Such has been the declared judgment of
our country and its practice, even under circumstances tempting
in another direction, and such also was the declared judgment
and practice of Great Britain with reference to Spanish America.
The conclusion, then, is clear. In order to justify a Recogni
tion it must appear beyond doubt that de facto the contest is
finished, and that de facto the new government is established
secure within fixed limits. These are conditions precedent
which cannot be avoided, without an open offence to a friendly
Power, and an open violation of that International Law which is
the guardian of the peace of the world. It wUl be for us shortly
to inquire if there be not another condition precedent, which
civilization in this age will require.
Do you ask now if Poreign Powers can acknowledge our Slave-
monger embryo as an Independent Nation ? There is madness in
the thought. A Recognition, accompanied by the breaking of the
blockade would be war — impious war — against the United States,
where Slave-mongers would be the allies and Slavery the inspira
tion. Of all wars in history none more accursed; none more
sure to draw down upon its authors the judgment alike of God
and man. But the thought of Recognition — under existing cir-

53
curastances — while the contest is still pending — even without any
breaking of the blockade or atterapted coercion, is a Satanic
absurdity, hardly less irapious than the other. Of course, it
would unblushingly assume that, in fact, the Slave-mongers
had already succeeded in establishing an Independent Nation
with an untroubled government, and a secure conformation
of territory — when in fact, nothing is established — nothing is
untroubled — nothing is secure, — not even a single boundary line ;
and there is no element of Independence except the audacious
atterapt ; when, in fact, the conflict is still waged on numerous
battle-fields, and these pretenders to Independence have been
driven from State to State — driven away frora the Mississippi,
which parts them — driven back from the sea which surrounds
thera — and shut up in the interior or in blockaded ports, so that
only by stealth can they communicate with the outward world.
Any Recognition of such a pretension, existing only as a pre
tension, scouted and denied by a whole people with invincible
armies and navies embattled' against it, would be a flaming
mockery of Truth. It would assert Independence as a fact
when notoriously it was not a fact. It would be an enormous lie.
Naturally a Power thus guilty would expect to support the lie by
arras. [IV.]
Impossibility op ant Recognition op Rebel Slave-Mongers
with Slavery as a Corner-Stone.
But I do not content myself with a single objection to this
outrageous consummation. There is anotlier of a different nature.
Assuraing, for the moment, what I am glad to believe can never
happen, that the new Slave Power has become Independent in
fact, while the national flag has sunk away exhausted in the con
test, there is an objection which, in an age of Christian light, thank
God ! cannot be overcome — unless the Great Powers which, by
solemn covenants, have branded Slavery, shall forget their vows,
while England, the declared protectress of the African race, and
Prance, the declared charapion of " ideas," both break away from
the irresistible logic of their history and turn their backs upon
the past. Vain is honor ; vain is human confidence, if these
nations at a moment of high duty can thus ignobly fail. " Renown
and grace is dead." Like the other objection, this is of fact
also ; for it is founded on the character of the Slave-monger pre
tension claiming Recognition, all of which is a fact. Perhaps it
may be said that it is a question of policy ; but it is of a policy
which ought to be beyond question, if the fact be established.
Something more is necessary than that the new Power shall be
de facto Independent. It must be de facto fit to be Independent and
from the nature of the case every nation wUl judge of this fitness

54
as a fact. In undertaking to acknowledge a new Power, you
proclaim its fitness for welcome and association in the Family of
Nations. Can England put forth such a proclamation in favor of
the whippers of women and sellers of children ? Can France
permit Louis Napoleon to put forth such a proclamation ?
And here, on the threshold of this inquiry, the true state of the
question must not be forgotten. It is not whether old and existing
relations shall be continued with a Power which permits Slavery ;
but whether relations shall be begun with a nevj Power, which
not merely permits Slavery, but builds its whole intolerable
pretension upon this Barbarism. " No New Slave State " is a
watchword with which we are already familiar ; but even this cry
does not reveal the full opposition to this new revolt against Civili
zation ; for even if disposed to admit a new Slave State, there
must be, among men who have not yet lost all sense of decency,
an undying resistance to the admission of a New Slave Power,
having such an unquestioned origiq and such an unquestioned
purpose as that which now flaunts in piracy and blood before the
civilized world, seeking Recognition for its crirainal chiraera.
Here is nothing fbr nice casuistry. Duty is as plain as the moral
law or the multiplication table.
Look for a moment at the unprecedented character of this pre
tension. A President had beeji elected by the people, in the
autumn of 1860, who was known to be against the extension of
Slavery. This was all. He had not yet entered upon the per
formance of his duties. But the Slave-mongers saw that Slavery
at home must suffer under this popular judgment against its
extension, and they rebelled. Under this inspiration State after
State pretended to withdraw from the Union and to construct a
new Confederacy, whose " corner-stone " was Slavery. A Consti
tution was adopted, which declared in these words : (1.) " No
law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves
shall be passed ; " and (2.) " in all territory, actual or acquired,
the institution of Negro Slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate
States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and the
Territorial Government." Do not start. These are the authentic
words of the text. You wUl find them in the Constitution.
Such was the unalterable fabric of the new Government. Nor
was there any doubt or hesitation in proclaiming its distinctive
character. Its Vice-President, Mr. Stephens, who thus far had
been remarked for his moderation on Slavery, as if smiT;ten with
diabolic light, undertook to explain and vindicate the Magna Carta
just adopted. His words are already farailiar ; but they cannot
be oraitted in an accurate statement of the case. " The new
Constitution," he said, " has put at rest forever all the agitating
questions relating to our peculiar institution, African Slavery, as
it exists among us," which he proceeds to declare " was the
immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution."

55
The Vice-President then announced unequivocally the change
that had taken place. Admitting that " it was the prevailing
idea of the leading statesmen at the foundation of the Old Consti
tution that the enslavement of the African was wrong in principle,
socially, morally and politically, and that it was a violation of the
laws of nature," he denounces this idea as " fundamentaUy
wrong," and proclaims the new government as " founded upon
exactly the opposite idea," There was no disguise. " Its founda
tions," he avows, " are laid, its corner-stone rests upon the great
truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man ; that Slavery,
subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condi-
.tion." Not content with exhibiting the untried foundation, he
boastfully claims for the new government the priority of invention.
" Our new Government," he vaunts, " is the first in the history of
the world based upon this great physical, philosophical and moral
truth. This stone which was rejected by the first builders is
become the chief stone of the corner." And then, as if priority of
invention were not enough, he proceeds to claim for the new
Government future supremacy, saying that it is already " a growing
power, which if true to itself, its destiny and its high mission, will
become the controlling power upon this continent."
Since Satan first declared the " corner-stone " of his new
government and openly denounced the Alraighty throne, there
has been no blaspheray of equal audacity. In huraan history
nothing but itself can be its parallel. Here was the gauntlet
thrown down to Heaven and Barth, while a disgusting Barbarisra
was proclairaed as the new Civilization. Two years have already
passed, but, as the Rebellion began, so it is now. A Governor of
South Carolina in a message to the Legislature as late as 3d
April, 1863, took up the boastful strain and congratulated the
Rebel Slave-mongers that they were " a refined, cultivated and
enlightened people," and that the new Government was " the
finest type that the world ever beheld." God save the mark !
And a leading journal, more than any other the organ of the
Slave-mongers, has uttered the original vaunt with more than the
original brutality. After dweUing on " the grand career and
lofty destiny" before the new Govemraent, the Richmond
Examiner of 28th May, 1863, proceeds as foUows ; " Would that
all of us understood and laid to heart the true nature of that
career and that destiny and the responsibility it imposes. The
establishment of the Confederacy is, verily, a distinct reaction
against the whole course of the mistaken civilization of the age.
For Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, we have deliberately
substituted Slavery, Subordination and Government. Reverently
we feel that our Confederacy is a God-sent missionary to the
nations with great truths to preach. We must speak thus boldly ;
but whoso hath ears to hear let him hear." It is this God-sunt

56
missionary to the nations, which it is now proposed to welcome at
the household hearth of the civilized world.
Unhappily there are old nations, still tolerating Slavery, already
in the Family ; but now, for the first time in history a new nation
claims adraission there, which not only tolerates Slavery, but,
exulting in its shame, strives to reverse the judgment of mankind
against this outrage, and to make it a chief support and glory,
so that all Recognition of the new Power will be the Recognition
of a sacrilegious pretension,
" With one vast blood-stone for the mighty base."
Elsewhere Slavery has been an accident; here it is the_ prin
ciple. Elsewhere it has been an instrument only ; here it is the
inspiration. Elsewhere it has been kept back in a becoming
modesty ; here it is pushed forward in all its brutish nakedness.
Elsewhere it has claimed nothing but Uberty to live ; here it
claims liberty to rule with unbounded empire at home and
abroad. Look at this candidate Power as you will, in its
whole continued existence, from its Alpha to its Omega, and it
is nothing but Slavery ! Its origin is Slavery ; its main-spring is
Slavery ; its object is Slavery. Wherever it appears, whatever it'
does, whatever form it takes, it is Slavery alone and nothing else,
so that, with the contrition of Satan, it might cry out,
Me miserable I which way shall I fly
Infinite wrath and infinite despair ?
Which way I fly is hell ; myself am hell.
The Rebellion is Slavery in arms ; Slavery on horse-back ;
Slavery on foot ; Slavery raging on the battle-field ; * Slavery
raging on the quarter-deck, robbing, destroying, burning, killing,
in order to uphold this candidate Power. Its legielation is
simply Slavery in statutes ; Slavery in chapters ; Slavery in
sections — :with an enacting clause. Its Diplomacy is Slavery in
pretended ambassadors ; Slavery in cunning letters ; Slavery in
cozening promises ; Slavery in persistent negotiations — all to
secure for the candidate Power its much desired welcome.
Say what you will ; try to avoid it if you can ; you are com
pelled to admit that the candidate Power is nothing else
than organized Slavery, which now in its madness — sur
rounded by its criminal clan, and led by its felon chieftains —
braves the civilization of the age. Therefore any Recogni
tion of this Power will be a Recognition of Slavery itself, with
welcome and benediction, imparting to it nev) consideration and
respectability, and worse still, securing to it new opportunity and
footliold for the supremacy which it openly proclaims.
Ia ancient days the candidate was robed in white, while at the
Capitol and in the Forum, he canvassed the people for their votes.
The candidate Nation, which is not ashamed of Slavery, should

57
be robed in black, whUe it conducts its great canvass and asks
the votes of the Christian Powers. " Hung be the heavens with
black, yield day to night," as the outrage proceeds ; for the
candidate gravely asks the international Recognition of the
claim to hold property in man ; to sell the wife away from the
husband ; to sell the chfld away from the parent ; to shut the
gates of knowledge ; to appropriate all the fruits of another's
labor. And yet the candidate proceeds in his canvass — although
all history declares that Slavery is essentially barbarous,' and
that whatever it touches it changes to itself; that it barba
rizes laws ; barbarizes business ; barbarizes manners ; barbarizes
social Ufe, and raakes the people who cherish it barbarians. And
still the candidate proceeds — although it is known to the Christian
Powers that the partisans of Slavery are naturally " filibusters,"
always apt for lawless incursions and for robbery ; that, during
latter years, under their instigation and to advance their preten
sions, expeditions, identical in motive with the present Rebellion,
were let loose in the Gulf of Mexico, twice against Cuba, and
twice also against Nicaragua, breaking the peace of the United
States and threatening the repose of the world, so that Lopez
and Walker were the predecessors of Beauregard and Jefferson
Davis. And yet the candidate proceeds — although it is obvious
that the Recognition which is urged, will be nothing less than a
solemn sanction by the Christian Powers of Slavery everywhere
throughout the new jurisdiction, whether on land or sea, so that
every ship, which is a part of the floating territory, wfll be Slave
Territory, And yet with the phantasy that man can hold property
in man shooting from his lips ; with the shackle and lash in his
hands ; with Barbarism on his forehead ; with Filibusterism in his
recorded life ; and with Slavery flying in his flag wherever it
floats on land or sea ; the candidate clamors for Christian Recog
nition. It is sad to think that there has been delay in repelling
the insufferable canvass. " Is thy servant a dog that he should do
this thing ? " It is not necessary to be a Christian ; it is sufficient
to be a man — in order to detest and combat such an accursed
pretension. If the Recognition of a de facto Power was a duty iraposed
upon other nations by International Law, there would be no
opportunity for objections founded on principle or policy. But
there is no such duty. International Law leaves to each nation,
precisely as the municipal law leaves to each citizen, what com
pany to keep or what copartnership to form. No corapany and
uo copartnership can be forced upon a nation. It is all a question
of free choice and acceptance. International Law on this head
is like the Constitution of the United States, which declares :
" New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union."
Not must but may; it being in the discretion of Congress to
determine whether the State shall be admitted. Accordingly, in

58
the exercise of this discretion. Congress for a long time refused
to admit Missouri as a Slave Slate, And now the old Missouri
Question, in a more outrageous form, on a grander theatre, "with
monarchs to behold the swelling scene," — is presented to the Chris
tian Powers of the world. If it were right to exclude Missouri,
having a few slaves only and regarding Slavery merely as a
temporary condition, it must be right to exclude a pretended
nation, which not only boasts its millions of slaves, but "passion
ately proclaims the perpetuity and propagation of slavery as the
cause and object of its separate existence.
Practical statesmen have always treated the question of Recog
nition as one of policy — to be determined on the facts of the
case — even where the Power was de facto established ; as
appears amply in the debates of the British Parhament on
the Recognition of Spanish America. If we go behind the
practical statesmen and consult the earliest oracles of Interna
tional Law, we shall find that, according to their most approved
words, not only raay Recognition be refused, but there are
considerations of duty this way which cannot be evaded. It is
not enough that a pretender has the form of a Commonwealth.
" A people," says Cicero, in a definition copied by most jurists,
" is not every body of men howsoever congregated, but a gathered
multitude, associated under the sanction of justice and for the
common good." — Juris consensu et utilitalis communione sociatus.
(De Repub. Lib. i., 25.) And again he goes so far as to say, in
the Republic, " when the king is unjust, or the aristocracy, or
the people itself, the Commonwealth, is not vicious but null," Of
course a Commonwealth that was null would not be recognized.
But Grotius, who speaks always with the magistral voice of learning
and genius, has given the just conclusion, when he presents the
distinction between a body of raen, who being already a Recog
nized Commonwealth, are guilty of systematic crime, as, for
instance, of piracy, and another body of men, who, not yet Recog
nized as a Commonwealth, are banded together for the sake of
systematic crime — sceleris causd coeunt, {De Jure Belli, ac Pads,
Lib. hi., cap. 3, § 2.) The latter, by a happy discrimination, he
places beyond the pale of honor or fellowship ; nam hi criminis
causd sociantur. But when before in all history, have creatures,
wearing the human form, proclaimed the criminal principle of'
their association, with the audacity of our Slave-mongers ?
It might be argued, on grounds of reason and authority even,
that the declared principle of the pretended Power, was a violation
of International Law. Eminent raagistrates have solemnly ruled,
that, in the development of civUization, the slave-trade has
become illegal, by a law higher, than any statute. Sir William
Grant, one of the ornaments of the British bench, whose elegant "
mind was governed always by practical sense, adjudged that " this
trade ca.nnot,abstractedly speaking, \i&\q any legitimate existence,"

59
{Amedie, 2 Acton R. 240) ; and ou» own great authority, Mr.
Justice Story, in a remarkable judgment, declared himself con
strained " to consider the trade against the universal law of
society," {La Jeune Eugenie, 2 Mason R. 451.) But the argu
ments which are strong against any Recognition of the slave-
trade, are strong also against any Recognition of Slavery itself.
It is not, however, necessary, in the determination of present
duty, to assume that Slavery, or the slave-trade, is positively for
bidden by existing International Law. It is enough to show,
that according to the spirit of that sovereign law which " sits
empress, crowning good, repressing ill," and according also to
those comraanding principles of justice and huraanity, which
cannot be set at naught without a shock to huraan nature itself,
so foul a wrong as Slavery can receive no voluntary support frora
the Coraraon wealth of Nations. It is not a question of law but
a question of Morality. The Rule of Law is sometimes less com
prehensive than the Rule of Morality, so that the latter may
positively condemn what the former silently tolerates. But within
its own domain the Rule of Morality cannot be less authoritative
than the Rule of Law itself. It is, indeed, nothing less than the
Law of Nature and also the Law of God. If we listen to a
Heathen teacher we shall confess its binding power. " Law,"
says Cicero, " is the highest reason implanted in nature, which
prescribes those things which ought to be done, and forbids the
contrary," — {DeLegibus, Lib. i., cap. 5.) This law is an essential
part of International Law, as is also Christianity itself, and,
where treaties fail and usage is silent, it is the only law between
nations. Jurists of all ages and countries have delighted to
acknowledge its authority, if it spoke only in the still small voice
of conscience. A celebrated professor of Germany in our own
day, Savigny, whose name is honored by the students of juris
prudence everywhere, touches upon this raonitor of nations, when
he declares that " there may exist between different nations a
common consciousness of Right similar to that which engenders
the Positive Law of particular nations." — {System des heutigen
Romischen Rechts, L, vn., cap 11, § 11.) But this common con
sciousness of right is identical with that law, which, according to
Cicero, is " the highest reason implanted in nature." Such is
the Rule of Morality,
The Rulfe of Morality differs from the Rule of Law in this
respect: that the former finds its support in the human con-
scieiice ; the latter in the sanctions of public force. But moral
power prevails with a good man as much as if it were physical. I
know no different rule for a good nation than for a good raan.
I am sure that a good nation will not do what a good man would
scorn to do.
But there is a fule of prudence superadded to the Rule of
Morality. Grotius in discussing treaties does not forget the

60
wisdom of Solomon, who,*in not a few places, warns against
fellowship with the wicked, although he adds, that these were
maxims of prudence and not of law.^(Lib. ii., cap. 15, § 9.)
And he reminds us of the saying of Alexander, " that those
grievously offend who enter the service of Barbarians." {Ibid,
§ 11.) But better still are the words of the wise historian of
classical antiquity, who enjoins upon a Commonwealth the duty of
considering carefully, when sued for assistance, " whether what is
sought is sufficiently pious, safe, glorious, or on the other hand
unbecoming;" — {Sallust Fragm,, iv. 2.) and also those words
of Scripture which after rebuking an alliance with Ahab, ask with
scorn, " Shouldst thou help the ungodly ?" (2 Chron., xiv., 2.)
If the claim for Recognition be brought to the touch-stone of
these principles, it will be easy to decide it.
Vain is it to urge the Practice of Nations in its behalf. Never
before in history has such a candidacy been put forward in the
name of Slavery ; and the terrible outrage is aggravated by the
Christian light which surrounds it. This is not the age of dark
ness. But even in the Dark Ages, when the Slave-mongers of
Algiers " had reduced themselves to a government or state," the
renowned Louis IX. " treated them as a nest of wasps." (1 Phil
liraore, p. 80.) Afterwards but slowly they obtained " the rights
of legation " and " the reputation of a government ; " but at last,
weary of their criminal pretensions, the aroused vengeance of
Great Britain and Prance blotted out this Power from the list of
nations. Louis XL, who has been described as " the sovereign
who best understood his interest," indignant at Richard III. of
England, who had murdered two infants in the tower, and usurped
the crown, sent back his ambassadors without holding any inter
course with them. This is a valuable precedent ; for the parricide
usurper of England had never murdered so many infants, or
usurped so rauch as the pretended Slave Power, which is strangely
tolerated by the sagacious sovereign who sits on the throne of
Louis XI. But it is not necessary to go so far in history ; nor
to dwell on the practice of nations in withholding or conceding
Recognition. The whole matter is stated by Burke with his
customary power :
" In the case of a divided kingdom by the Law of Nations, Great Britain,
like every other Power, is free to take any part she pleases. She may
decline, with more or less formality, according io her discretion, to achnowl-
edge this new system ; or she may recognize it as a government de facto,
setting aside all discussion of its original legality, and considering the
ancient monarchy as at an end. The Law of Nations leaves our court
open to its choice. The declaration of a new species of government on new
principles is a real crisis in the politics of Europe." *(Thouqhts on French
Affairs, 1791.)

61
Another eloquent publicist. Sir James Mackintosh, while urging
on Parliament the Recognition of Spanish America, says, " The
reception of a new State into the society of civihzed nations by
those acts which amount to recognition is a proceeding, which, as
it has no legal character, is purely of a moral nature ; " and he
proceeds to argue that since England is " the only anciently free
State in the world, for her to refuse her moral aid to communities
struggling for liberty, is an act of unnatural harshness." {Mack
intosh's Works, Vol. hi. p. 438.) Thus does he vindicate Recog
nition for the sake of Freedom. How truly he would have
repelled any Recognition for the sake of Slavery, let his life
testify. But, perhaps, no better testimony to the practice of nations can
be found than in the words of Vattel, whose work, presenting the
subject in a familiar form, has done more^during the last century,
to fashion opinion on the Law of Nations than any other authority.
Here it is briefly : —
" If there be any nation that makes an open profession of trampling justice
under foot, of despising and violating the right of others, whenever it finds
an opportunity, the interest of human society will authorize all others to
humble aad chastise it." (Book ii., cap. 4, § 70.) " To form and support
an unjust pretension is to. do an injury not only to him who is interested in
this pretension, but to mock at justice in general and to injure all nations."
(Ibid.) " He who assists an odious tyrant — he who declares for an unjust
and rebellious people — violates his duty." (Ibid, § 56.) "As to those
monsters, who under the title of sovereigns, render themselves the scourges
and horror of the human race, they are savage beasts, whom every brave
man may justly exterminate from the face of the earth." (Ibid.) " But if
the maxims of a religion tend to establish it by violence and to oppress all
those who will not embrace it, the law of nature forbids us to favor that
religion or to contract any unnecessary alliance with its inhuman followers,
and the common safety of mankind invites them rather to enter into an
alliance against su,ch a people ; to repress such outrageous fanatics, who
disturb the public repose and threaten all nations," (Ibid, Book ii., cap. 12,
§ 162.) Vainly do you urge this Recognition on any principle of the
Comity of Nations. This is an expansive term into which enters
much of the refinements, amenities and hospitalities of Civiliza
tion, and also something of the obligations of moral duty. But
where an act is prejudicial to national interests or contrary to
national policy or questionable in morals, it cannot be commended
by any considerations of courtesy. There is a paramount duty
which must not be betrayed by a kiss. Por the sake of Comity, acts
of good wiU and friendship not required by law are performed
between nations ; but an English Court has authoritatively
declared that this principle cannot prevail " where it violates the
law of our own country, the Law of Nature or the Law of God ; "

62
and on this adamantine ground it was decided, that an American
slave, who had found shelter on board of a British man-of-war,
could not be recognized as a slave. {Forbes v. Cochrane, 2 Barn.
and Cres., R. 448.) But the same principle would prevaU against
the Recognition of a new Slave Nation.
Vainly do you urge this Recognition on any reason of Peace,
There can be no peace founded on injustice ; and any Recognition
is an injustice which will cry aloud resounding through the
universe. You raay seem to have 'peace ; but it will be only a
smothered war, destined to break forth in war more direful than
before. Thus is every argument for Recognition repelled, whether it be
under the sounding words, Practice of Nations — Comity of Nations
— or Peace. There is nothing in Practice, nothing in Comity,
noUiing in Peace, which is not against any such sharaeful sur
render. But applying the principles which have been already set
forth ; — assuming what cannot be denied, — that every Power is
free to refuse Recognition ; assuming that it is not every body of
men that can be considered a Comraonwealth, but only " those
associated under the sanction of justice and for the coramon good ; "
that men " banded together for the sake of systematic criitie " can
not be considered a Comraonwealth ; — assuraing that every member
of the Family of Nations will surely obey the Rule of Morality ;
that it will " shun fellowship with the wicked ; " that it will not
" enter into the service of Barbarians ; " that it will avoid what is
" unbecoming " and do that only which is " pious, safe and
glorious ; " and that above all things it will not enter into an
alliance " to help the ungodly;" assuming* these things — every
such raeraber must reject with indignation a new pretension whose
declared principle of association is so essentiaUy wicked. Here
there can be no question. The case is plain ; nor is any language
of contumely or scorn too strong to express the irrepressible
repugnance to such a pretension, which, like vice, " to be hated
needs only to be seen." Surely there can be no Christian Power
which will not leap to expose it, saying with irresistible voice :
(1.) No new sanction of Slavery. (2.) No new quickening of
Slavery in its active and aggressive Barbarism. (3.) No new
encouragement to the " filibusters " engendered by Slavery. (4.)
No new creation of Slave territory. (5.) No new creation of a
Slave Navy. (6.) No new Slave Nation. (7.) No installation
of Slavery as a new Civilization. But all this Litany will fail, if
Recognition prevails — from which Good Lord deliver us ! Nor
will this be the end of the evil.
Slavery, through the new Power, wfll take its place in the
Parliament of mankind, with all the immunities of an Indepen
dent Nation, ready always to uphold and advance itself, and
organized as an unrelenting Propaganda of the new Faith, A

63
Power, having its inspiration in such a Barbarism, must be essen
tially barbarous ; founded on the asserted right to whip women
and to sell children, it must assume a character of disgusting
hardihood, and, openly professing a determination to revolutionize
the Public Opinion of the world, it must be in open schism with
Civilization itself, so that all its influences will be wild, savage,
brutal, and all its offspring kindred in character,
Pard genders pard ; from tigers tigers spring ;
No dove is hatclied beneath the vulture's wing.
Such a Power, from its very nature, must be Despotism at home
" tempered only by assassination," with cotton-fields instead of
Siberia, while abroad it must be aggressive, dangerous and revolt
ing, in itself a Magnum Latrocinium, whose fellowship can have
nothing but " the filthiness of Evil," and whose very existence will
be an intolerable nuisance. When Dante, in the vindictive judgment
which he hurled against his own Florence, called it bordello, he
did not use a term too strong for the mighty House of III Fame
which the Christian Powers are now asked for tiie first time to
license. Such must be the character of the new Power. But
though only a recent wrong, and pleading no prescription, the
illiraitable audacity of its nature will hesitate at nothing ; nor is
there any thing offensive or detestable which it will not absorb
into itself. It will be an Ishraael with its hand against every man.
It will be a brood of Harpies defiling all which it cannot steal.
It will be the one-eyed Cyclop of nations, seeing only through
Slavery, spurning all as fools who do not see likewise, and bellow
ing forth in savage egotism :
Know then, we Cyclops are a race above
Those air-bred people and their goat-nursed Jove ;
And learn our power proceeds with thee and thine
Not as Jove wills, but as ourselves incline.
Or worse stUl, it will be the soulless monster of Frankenstein — the
wretched creation of mortal science without God — endowed with
life and nothing else — forever raging madly, the scandal to human
ity — powerful only for evil — whose destruction wiirbe essential to
the peace of the world.
WJio can welcome such a creation ? Who can consort with it ?
There is something loathsome in the idea. There is contamina
tion even in the thought. If you live with the lame, says the ancient
proverb, you will learn to Ump ; if you keep in the kitchen you wUI
smell of smoke ; if you touch pitch you will be defiled. But what
lameness so pitiful as that of this pretended Power ; what smoke so
foul as its breath ; what pitch so defihng as its touch ? It is an
Oriental saying that a cistern of rose-water wiU becorae irapure,
if a dog be dropt into it ; but a continent of rose-water with

64
Rebel Slave-mongers would be changed into a vulgar puddle.
Imagine, if you please, whatever is raost disgusting, and this
pretended Power is more disgusting still. Naturalists report
that the pike will swallow any thing except the toad ; but this it
cannot do. The experiment has been tried, and, though this fish,
in its voracity, always gulps whatever is thrown to it, yet invaria
bly it spews this nuisance from its throat. But our Slave-monger
pretension is worse than the toad; and yet there are Foreign
Nations which, instead of spewing it forth, are already turning it
like a precious morsel on the tongue.
But there is yet another ground on which I make this appeal.
It is a part of the triumphs of Civihzation, that no Nation can
act for itself alone. Whatever it does for good or for evil,
affects all the rest. Therefore a Nation cannot forget its obli
gations to others. Especially does International Law, when
it declares the absolute Equality of Independent Nations,
cast upon all Nations the duty of considering well how this
privflege shall be bestowed, so that the welfare of all may be
best upheld. But the whole Family of Nations would be
degraded by admitting this new pretension to any toleration, much
less to any equaUty. There can be no reason for such admission ;
for it can bring nothing to the general weal. Civil society is
created for safety and tranquillity. Nations come together and
fraternize for the coraraon good. But this hateful pretension can
do nothing but evil for civil society at home or for nations in their
relations with each other. It can show no title to Recognition ;
no passport for its travels ; no old creation. It is all new ; and
here let me borrow the language of Burke on another occasion ;
" It is not a new Power of an old kind. It is a new Power of a
new species. When such a questionable shape is to be admitted
for the first time into the brotherhood of Christendom, it is not
a raere matter of idle curiosity to consider how far it is in its
nature alliable with the rest." {Regicide Peace, 2d Letter.)
The greatest of corporations is a nation ; the sublimest of all
associations is that which is composed of nations, independent
and equal, knit together in the bonds of peaceful Fraternity as
the great Christian Commonwealth. The Slave-mongers may be
a corporation in fact; but no such corporation can flnd a place in
that sublime Commonwealth. As well admit the Thugs, whose
first article of faith is to kill a stranger — or the Buccaneers, those
old " brothers of the coast," who plundered on the sea — or better
stiU revive the old Kingdom of the Assassins, where the king was
an assassin, surrounded by counsellors and generals who were
assassins, and all his subjects were assassins. Or yet again better
at once and openly recognize Anti-Christ, who is the supreme and
highest impersonation of the Slave-Power,
Araidst the general degradation that would follow such an
obeisance to Slavery, there are two Christian Powers that would

65
appear in sad and shameful eminence. I refer to Great Britain —
the declared " protectress of the African race," — and to Prance, the
declared champion of " ideas," — who,from the very largess of their
pledges, are so situated, that they cannot desert the good old
cause and turn their backs upon civilization without a criminal
self -stultification, which no amount of apologies can conceal.
Where then would be British devotion to the African race ?
Where then would be French devotion to ideas? — Remera
bered only to point a tale and show how nations had fallen.
Great Britain knows less than France of national vicissitudes ;
but such an act of wrong would do soraething in its influence to
equalize the conditions of these two nations. Better for the fast-
anchored isle that it should be sunk beneath the sea, with its
cathedrals, its castles, its fields of glory, Runnymede, West
minster Hall and the home of Shakspeare, than that it should do
this thing. In other days England has valiantly striven against
Slavery ; and now she proposes to surrender, at a moment when
more can be done than ever before against the monster wherever
it shows its head, for Slavery everywhere has its neck in this
Rebellion. In other days France has valiantly striven for ideas ;
and now she too proposes to surrender, although all that she has
professed' to have at heart is involved in the doom of Slavery,
which a word frora her might hasten beyond recall. But it is in \
England, more even than in France, that the strongest sentiment '
for Rebel Slave-mongers has been manifest, constituting a moral
mania, which menaces a pact and concordat with the Rebellion
itself, — as when an early Pope, the head of the Christian Church,
did not hesitate to execute a piratical convention with a pagan
enemy of the Christian name. It only remains that the new
coalition should be signed, in order to consummate the unutterable
degradation. It was the fate of ^dipus, in the saddest story of
antiquity, to wed his own raother without knowing it; but
England will wed the Slave-Power with full knowledge that the
relation, if not incestuous, is vile. The contracting parties will
be the Queen of England, and Jefferson Davis the Rebel Slave-
monger patron of " repudiation." It will only reraain for this
virtuous Lady, whose pride it is to seek justice always, to bend
in pitiful abjectness to receive as a plenipotentiary at her Court
the author of the Fugitive Slave BUl.
A Slave-monger Power will take its seat at the great council-
board, to jostle thrones and benches, while it overshadows
Humanity. Its foul attorneys, reeking with Slavery, will have
their letter of license, as the ambassadors of Slavery, to rove
from court to court, over foreign carpets, talking, drinking,
spitting Slavery and poisoning that air which has been nobly
pronounced too pure for a slave to breathe. Alas ! for England's
Queen, seduced, led and drawn away from the cause of Wilber
force and Clarkson to sink into unseemly dalliance with the
5

66
scourgers of women and the auctioneers of children. Alas ! for
that Royal Consort, humane and great, whose dying voice was
given to assuage the temper of that ministerial despatch by which,
iu an evil hour, England was made to strike hands with Rebel
Slave-mongers ; for the councillor is needed now to save the land
which he adorned frora an act of inexpiable shame. Alas ! for
England, vowed a thousand times to the cause of the African
race and knit perpetually by her best renown to this sacred
loyalty, now plunging into adulterous honey-moon with Slavery —
recognizing the new and impious Protestantism against Liberty
itself — and wickedly becoming the Defender of the Faith, even
as professed by Rebel Slave-mongers.
And for all this sickening immorality I hear but one declared
apology. It is said that the Union permitted and still permits
Slavery ; therefore Foreign Nations may recognize Rebel Slave-
mongers as a new Power. But here is the precise question.
England is still in diplomatic relations with Spain, and was only
a short tirae ago in diplomatic relations with Brazil, both per
mitting Slavery ; but these two Powers are not new ; they are
already established ; there is no question of their Recognition ;
nor do they pretend to found empire on Slavery, There is no
reason in any relations with them why a nevj Power, with Slavery
as its declared " corner-stone," whose gospel is Slavery and whose
evangelists are Slave-mongers, should be recognized in the Family
of Nations. If Ireland were in triumphant rebellion against the
British Queen, coraplaining of rights denied, it would be our duty
to recognize her as an Independent Power ; but if Ireland
rebelled, with the declared object of establishing a new Power,
which should be nothing less than a giant felony and a nuisance
to the world, then it would be our duty to spurn the infamous
pretension, and no triumph of the Rebellion could change this
plain and irresistible necessity. And yet, in the face of this com
manding rule, we are told to expect the Recognition of Rebel
Slave-mongers. But an aroused Public Opinion, " the world's collected will"
and returning reason in England and Prance will see to it that
Civilization is saved from this shock and the nations theraselves
from the terrible retribution which sooner or later must surely
attend it. No Power can afford to lift itself before mankind and
openly vote a new and untrammelled charter to injustice and
cruelty. God is an unsleeping avenger ; nor can armies, fleets,
bulwarks or " towers along the steep " prevail against his mighty
anger. There is but one word which the Christian Powers can utter
to any application for this unholy Recognition. It is simply and
austerely " No," with an emphasis that shall silence argument
and extinguish hope itself. And this Proclamation should go
forth swiftly. Every moment of hesitation is a moment of apos
tacy, casting its lengthening shadow of dishonor. Not to dis-

67
courage is to encourage ; not to blast is to bless. Let this simple
word be uttered and Slavery wUl shrink away with a mark on its
forehead, like Cain — a perpetual vagabond — without welcome or
fellowship, so that it can only die. Let this simple word be
uttered and the audacious Slave-Power will be no better than the
Flying Dutchman, that famous craft, which, darkened by piracy
and murder, was doomed to a perpetual cruise, unable to enter a
port; Faint and despairing in their watery bier.
To every friendly shore the sailors steer ;
Repelled from port to port they sue in vain.
And track with slow, unsteady sail the main,
Unblest of God and man 1 Till time shall end
Its view strange horror to tlie storm shall lend.
No Concession op Ocean Belligerency without a Prize
Court; — especially to Rebel Slave-mongers.
Too much have I spoken for your patience, if not enough for
the cause. But there is yet another topic which I have reserved
to the last, because logically it belongs there, or at least it can be
best considered in the gathered light of the previous discussion.
Its immediate, practical interest is great. I refer to the conces
sion of Belligerent Rights, being the first stage to Independence.
Great Britain led the way in acknowledging the embryo gov
ernment of Rebel Slave-mongers as Belligerents on sea as well as
on land, and, by a Proclamation of the Queen, declared her
neutrality between the two parties, thus lifting the embryo gov
ernment of Rebel Slave-mongers, which was nothing else than
organized and aggressive Slavery, to an Equality on sea as well
as on land with its ancient ally, the National Government. Here
was a blunder if not a crirae — not raerely in the alacrity with
which it was done but in doing it at all. It was followed imme
diately by Prance, and then by Spain, Holland and Brazil. The
concession of Belligerent Rights on land was only a name and
nothing more ; therefore I say nothing about it. But the conces
sion of Belligerent Rights on the Ocean is of a widely different
character, and the two reasons against the Recognition of the
independence of the embryo government are applicable also to
this concession. First, The embryo government has no maritime
or naval Belligerent Rights, de facto ; and secondly, an embryo
government of Rebel Slave-mongers cannot have the character de
facto which would justify the concession of maritime or naval
Belligerency; so that could the concession be vindicated on
the first ground, it raust fail on the second.
The concession of Ocean Belligerency is a Letter of License
from the consenting Powers to every Slave-monger cruiser, or

68
rather it is the countersign of these Powers to the commission of
every such cruiser. Without such countersign the Slave-monger
cruiser would be an outlaw, with no right to enter a single foreign
port. The declaration of Belligerency gives to him legal compe
tency and admits him to testify by flag and arms. Without such
competency he could have no flag, and no right to bear arms on
the ocean. Burke sententiously describes it as an " intermediate
Treaty which puts rebels in possession of the Law of Nations,"
And this is plainly true.
The raagnitude of this concession may be seen in three aspects ;
first, in the immunities which it confers ; putting an embryo
government of Rebel Slave-mongers on an equality with established
governments, making its cruisers lawful instead of piratical,
and opening to them boundless facilities at sea andin port, so that
they may obtain supplies and even hospitality. Secondly, in the
degradation that it fastens upon the National Government, which
is condemned to see its ships treated on an equality with the ships
of Rebel Slave-mongers, and also the just rule of " neutrality "
between Belligerent Powers called in to fetter its activity against a
giant felony. And thirdly, it may be seen in the disturbance to
commerce which it sanctions, by letting loose lawless sea-rovers,
armed with Belligerent Rights — including the right of search
— whose natural recklessness is left unbridled, and without
any remedy even from diplomatic intercourse. The ocean is a
common highway ; but on this account it is for the interest of all
who share it, that it should not be disturbed by predatory
hostilities. Such a concession should be made with the greatest
caution, and then, only under the necessity of the case, on the
overwhelming authority of the fact ; for, from beginning to end,
it is simply a question of fact, absolutely dependent on those
conditions and prerequisites without which Ocean Belligerency
cannot exist.
As a general rule. Belligerent Rights are conceded only where
a rebel government, or contending party in a civil war, has
acquired such forra and body, that, for the time being, within
certain limits, it is sovereign de facto, so far at least as to
command troops and to administer justice. The concession of
Belligerency is the Recognition of such limited sovereignty, which
bears the same relation to acknowledged Independence as gristle
bears to bone. It is obvious that such sovereignty may exist
de facto on land without existing de facto on the ocean. It may
prevail in armies and yet fail in navies. In short the fact may
be one way on land, and the other way on the ocean; nor can it
be inferred on the ocean simply from its existence on the land.
Since every such concession is adverse to the original government,
and is made only under the necessity of the case, it must be
carefully Umited to the actual fact. Indeed, Mr. Canning, who
has bhed so much light on these topics, openly took the ground

69
that " Belligerency is not so much a principle as a fact," And
the question then arises, whether the Rebel Slave-mongers have
acquired such de facto sovereignty on the ocean as entitles them
to Ocean Belligerent rights.
There are at least two " facts " which are patent to all, first,
that the Rebel Slave-raongers have not a single port into which
even legal cruisers can take their prizes for adjudication ; and
secondly, that the ships which now presume to exercise Ocean
Belligerent rights in their name — constituting the Rebel Slave-
monger navy, which a meraber of the British Cabinet said was
" to be created " — were all " created " in England, which is the
naval base from which they sally forth on their predatory cruise
without once entering a port of their own pretended Government.
These two " facts " are different in character. The first
attaches absolutely to the pretended Power, rendering it incom
petent to exercise Belligerent jurisdiction on the ocean. The
second attaches to the individual ships, rendering them piratical.
But these simple and unquestionable " facts " are the key to unlock
the present question.
Prom the reason of the case, there can be no Ocean Belligerent
without a port into which it can take its prizes. Any other rule
would be absurd. It will not be enough to sail the sea, like
the Flying Dutchman ; the Ocean Belligerent must be able to
touch the land and that land its own. This proceeds on the idea
of civilized warfare, that soraething more than naked force is
essential to the completeness of a capture. According to the
earlier rule, transmutation of property was accomplished by the
" pernoctation " of the captured ship within the port of the
Belligerent, or as it was called, deductio infra prasidia. As early
as 1414, under Henry V., of England, there was an Act of Par
liament, requiring privateers to bring their prizes into a port of
the kingdom, and to make a declaration thereof to a proper officer,
before undertaking to dispose of them, {Runnington's Statutes,
Vol. i., p. 491.) But the raodern rule interposes an additional
check upon lawless violence by requiring the condemnation of a
competent court. This rule, which is among the most authori
tative of the British Admiralty, will be found in the famous
letter of Sir William Scott and Sir John Nichol, addressed to
John Jay, as follows ; " Before the ship or goods can be disposed
of by the captors, there must be a regular judicial proceeding,
wherein both parties may be heard and condemnation therefrom
as Prize in a Court of Admiralty, judging by the Law of Nations
and Treaties." This is explicit. But this rule is French as well
as English. Indeed it is a part of International Law. A seizure
is regarded merely as a preliminary act, which does not divest the
property, though it paralyzes the right of the proprietor. A
subsequent act of condemnation, by a competent tribunal, is nec
essary to determine if the seizure is vaUd. The question is

70
compendiously called prize or no prize. Where the property of
neutrals is involved this requirement becomes of absolute import-
tance. In conceding Belligerency, all the customary belligerant
rights with regard to neutrals are conceded also, so that the
concession puts in jeopardy neutral commerce. But without
dwelling on this point, I content myself with the authority of two
recent French writers. M. Hautefeuille, in his elaborate work,
says " the cruiser is not recognized as the proprietor ofthe objects
seized, but he is held to bring them before the tribunal and obtain
a sentence declaring them- to be prize," {Hautefeuille, Des
Droits et des Devoirs des Nations neutres. Vol. iii., p. 299, 323,
352.) And a later writer, M. Eugene Cauchy, whose work has
appeared since our war began, says, " A usage, which evidently
has its source in natural equity, requires that, before proceeding
to divide the booty, there should be an inquiry as to the regularity
of the prize; and to this end, every prize taken from an enemy
should be carried before the judge established by the sovereign
of the captor." {Cauchy, Droit Maritime International, Yo\, i.,
p. 65, 66. But if the Power, calling itself Belligerent, cannot
comply with this condition ; if it has no port into which it can
bring the captured ship, and no court, according to the require
ment of the British Admiralty, with " a regular judicial proceeding
wherein both parties may be heard," it is clearly not in a situation
to dispose of a ship or goods as prize. Whatever may be its force
in other respects, it lacks a vital element of Ocean Belligerency.
In that sfiTOt-sovereignty, which constitutes Belligerency on land,
there must be a provision for the administration of justice, without
which there is nothing but a mob. In th&,t same semt-sovereignty
on the ocean there must be a similar provision. It will not be
enough that there should be ships duly commissioned to take
prizes, there must also be courts to try them ; and the latter are
not less important than the former.
Lord Russell himself, who was so swift to make this concession,
has been led to confess the necessity of Prize Courts- on the part
of Ocean Belligerents, and thus to expose the irrational character
of his own work. In a letter to the Liverpool Charaber of Com
merce., dated 1st January, 1862, occasioned by the destruction of
British cargoes, the Minister says : " The owners of any British
property, not being contraband of war, on board a Federal vessel
captured and destroyed by a Confederate vessel of war, may claim
in a Confederate Prize Court compensation for destruction of such
property," (Wheaton's Elements, Lawrence's edit., p. 1024.)
But if there be no Prize Court, then justice must fail ; and with
this failure tumbles in fact the whole wretched pretension of
Ocean Belligerency — except in the galvanism of a Queen's
Proclamation, or a Cabinet concession.
If a cruiser may at any time burn prizes, it is only because of
some exceptional exigency in a particular case, and not according

71
to any general rule. The general rule declares that there can be
no right to take a prize, if there be no port into which it may be
carried. The right of capture and the right of trial are the com
plements of each other — through which a harsh prerogative is
supposed to be rounded into the proper form of civilized warfare.
Therefore, every ship and cargo, byrned by the captors, for the
reason that they had no port, testifies that they are without that
vital sovereignty on the ocean, which is needed in the exercise
of Belligerent jurisdiction, and that they are not Ocean Belliger
ents in fact. Nay more ; all these bonfires of the sea cry out
against that Power, which by a precipitate concession of a false
Belligerency furnished the torch. As well invest the rebeUious
rajahs of India, who have never tasted salt water, with this Ocean
prerogative, so that they too may rob and burn ; as well constitute
land-locked Poland, now in arras for Independence, an Ocean
Belligerent ; or enroll raountain Switzerland in the same class ; or
join with Shakspeare iu raaking inland Bohemia a country with
hospitable ports on the ocean.
To aggravate this concession of a false Belligerency, the ships are
all built, rigged, armed and manned in Great Britain. It is out
of British oak and British iron that they are constructed ; rigged
with British ropes ; made formidable with British arms ; supplied
with British gunners and navigated by British crews, so as to con
stitute in all respects a British naval expedition, British ports sup
ply the place of Rebel Slave-monger ports. British ports are open
to them when their own are closed. British ports constitute their
naval base of operations and supplies, furnishing every thing need
ful — except an officer — the ship's papers — and a court for the trial
of the prizes — each of which is essential to the legality of the expe
dition. And yet these same ships, thus equipped in British ports
and never touching a port of the pretended government in whose
name they rob and burn, — being simply a rib taken out of the side
of England and contributed to a Slave-monger Rebellion, — receive
the further passport of Belligerency frora the British Government
when in fact the Belligerency does not exist. The whole proceed
ing, from the laying of the keel in a British dockyard to the
bursting flames on the ocean, is a mockery of International Law
and an insult to a friendly Power.
The case is soraetiraes said to be new ; but it is new only inas
much as no such " parricide " is provided against in express
terras. It was not anticipated. But the principles which govern
it are as old as justice and huraanity, in the interests of which
Belligerent Rights are said to be conceded. Here it is all reversed,
and it is now apparent that, whatever may have been the motives
of the British Government, Belligerent Rights have been conceded
in the interests of twjustice and mhumanity. Burning ships and
scattered wrecks are the witnesses. If such a case is not con
demned by International Law, then has this law lost its virtue.

72
Call such cruisers by whatever polite term most pleases the ear,
and you do not change their character with their name. Without
a home aud without a legal character, they are mere gypsies of
the sea, who by their criminal acts have become disturbers of the
common highway, outlaws and euemies of the human race.
But there is a precedent, which shows how irapossible it is for
a pretended Power, without a single port, to possess Belhgerent
Rights on the ocean, and how impossible it is for the ship of such
pretended Power to be any thing but a felon ship. James II. of
England, after he had ceased to be de facto king and while he was
an exile without a single port, undertook to issue Letters of
Marque. It was argued unanswerably before the Privy Council
of William IIL, that, whatever might be the claims de jure of a
deposed prince, he could not receive from any other sovereign
" international privileges ; " " that, if he could grant a coraraission
to take the ships of a single nation, it would in effect be a general
license to plunder, because those who were so commissioned loould
be their own judges of whatever they took; and that the reason ox
the thing which pronounced that robbers and pirates, when they
formed themselves into a civil society, became just enemies, pro
nounced also that a king without territory, without power of
protecting the innocent or punishing the guilty, or in any way of
administering justice, dwindled into a pirate if he issued commis
sions to seize the goods and ships of nations, and that they who
took commissions from him must be held by legal inference to have
associated ' sceleris causd ' and could not be considered as members
of civil society," (Phillimore, International Law, Vol. i. 401.)
These words are strictly applicable to the present case. Whatever
may be the force of the Rel3el Slave-mongers on land, they are no
better on the ocean than the " deposed prince " — " without
power of protecting the innocent or punishing the guilty, or in any
way of administering justice ; " and, like the prince, they too have
" dwindled into a pirate," — except so far as they may be sustained
by British Recognition.
And there is yet another precedent, which shows that the
appropiation ofa captured ship or cargo without judicial proceed
ings, is piracy. The case is memorable. It is none other than
that of the faraous Captain Kidd, who, on his indictment for piracy,
as long ago as 1698, produced a comraission in justification. But
it was at once declared that it was not enough to show a comrais
sion ; he must also show a condemation of the captured ship. The
Lord Chief Baron of that day said that " if he had acted pursuant to
his coraraission he ought to have condemned ship and goods ; that
by not condemning them he showed his aim, mind and intention,
and that he did not act in that case by virtue of his commission,
but quite contrary to it ; that he took the ship and shared the
money and goods, and was taken in that very ship, so that there
is no color or pretence that he intended to bring this ship to Eng-

73
land to be condemned or to have condemned it in any of the English
plantations ; and that whilst men pursue their commissions they
must be justified ; but when they do things not authorized or ever
intended by them, it was as if they had no commissions, (Har-
grave's State Trials, Vol. v. p. 314.) Capt. Kidd was condemned
to death and executed as a pirate. If he was a pirate, worthy of
death, then, by the sarae rule, those rovers who burn ships, rob
cargoes and adorn their cabins with rows of stolen chronoraeters,
— without any pretence of a Prize Court — must be pirates, worthy
of death likewise.
But without now considering raore critically what should be
the fate of these ocean-incendiaries, or what the responsibilities of
England, out of whom they carae, I content myself with the
conclusion that they are not entitled to Ocean Belligerency.
But even if Rebel Slave-mongers coagulated in embryo
government, have arrived at that semi-sovereignty de facto on
the ocean which justifies the concession of Belligerent Rights, yet
the Christian Powers should indignantly decline to make the
concession, because they cannot do so without complicity with a
shameful crime. Here I avoid details. It is sufficient to say,
that every argument of fact and reason — every whisper of con
science and humanity — every indignant outburst of an honest
man against the Recognition of Slave-monger Independence is
equally strong against any concession of Ocean Belligerency.
Indeed such concession is the half-way house to Recognition, and
it can be made only where a nation is ready, if the fact of Inde
pendence be sufficiently established, to acknowledge it — on the
principle of Vattel that " whosoever has a right to the end has a right
to the means." (Book IV. cap. v. § 60.) But it is equally clear,
that where a nation, on grounds of conscience, must refuse the
Recognition of Independence, it cannot concede Belligerency, for
where the end is forbidden the means must be forbidden also.
But the illogical absurdity of any such concession by Great
Britain, so persistent always against Slavery and now for more
than a generation the declared " protectress of the African race,"
becomes doubly apparent when it is considered, that every rebel
ship built in England and invested with Ocean Belligerency,
carries with it the law of Slavery, so that the ship becomes an
extension of Slave Territory by British concession.
And yet it is said that such a monster is entitled to the conces
sion of ocean rights, and the British Queen is made to proclaim
them. Sad day for England when another wicked compromise
was struck with Slavery, kindred in nature to that old Treaty,
which mantles the cheeks of honest Englishmen as they read it,
by which the slave-trade was protected and its profits secured to
British subjects ! I know not the profits which have been secured
by the destruction of American commerce ; but I do know that
the Treaty of Utrecht, crimson with the blood of slaves, is not

74
so crimson as that reckless Proclamation, which gave to Slavery a
frantic life, and helped for a time, nay still helps the deraon, in
the rage with which it battles against Huraan Rights. Such a
ship with the Law of Slavery on its deck and with the flag of
Slavery at its mast-head, sailing for Slavery, burning for Slavery,
fighting for Slavery and knowing no other sovereignty than the
pretended government of Rebel Slave-mongers, can be nothing
less, in spirit and character, than a Slave-Pirate and the enemy of
the human race. Like produces like, and the parent Power,
which is Slavery, must stamp itself upon the ship, making it a
floating offence to Heaven, with no limit to its audacity — wild,
outrageous, impious, a monster of the deep to be hunted down by
all who have not forgotten their duty alike to God and man.
Meanwhile there is one simple act which the justice of England
cannot continue to refuse. That fatal concession of Ocean
Belligerency, made in a moment of eclipse, when reason and
humanity were obscured, must be annulled. The blunder-crime
must be renounced, so that the Slave-pirates may no longer sail the
sea, burning, destroying, robbing, with British license. Then will
they promptly disappear forever, and with them will disappear
the occasion of strife between two Great Powers, who ought to
be, if not as mother and child, at least as brothers among the
Nations. And may God in his mercy help this consummation !
And here I leave this part of the subject, founding my objec
tions on two grounds :
(1.) The embryo government of Rebel Slave-mongers has not
that degree of sovereignty on the ocean which is essential to
Belligerency there.
(2.) Even if it possessed the requisite sovereignty, no Christian
Power can make any such concession to it without a shameful
complicity with Slavery.
Both of these are objections of fact. Either is sufficient. But
even if the BeUigerency seems to be established as a fact, still its
concession in this age of Christian Ught would seem to be irapos
sible, unless under some temporary aberration, which, for the
honor of England and the welfare of Humanity, it is to be hoped
will speedily pass away. Our Duties,
Again, fellow-citizens, I crave forgiveness for this long trespass
upon your patience. If the field that we have traversed has been
ample, it has been brightened always by the light of International
Justice, exposing clearly from beginning to end the sacred land
marks of duty. I have been frank, disguising nothing and keeping
nothing back ; so that you have been able to see the perils to which
the Republic is exposed from the natural tendency of war to breed
war, as exhibited in the examples of history, and also from the

75
fatal proclivity of Poreign Powers to intermeddle, as exhibited in
recent instances of querulous criticism or intrusive proposition, all
adverse to the good cause, while pirate ships have been permitted
to depredate on our commertie ; then how the best historic instances
testify in favor of Freedora and how all Intervention of every kind,
whether by proffer of raediation or otherwise, becomes intolerable
when its influence tends to the establishment of that soulless
anomaly a professed Republic built on the hopeless and everlasting
bondage of a race — and especiaUy how Great Britain is sacredly
engaged by all the logic of her history and all her traditions in
unbroken lineage against any such unutterable baseness ; then
how all the Christian Powers, constituting the Family of Nations,
are firmly bound to set their faces against any Recognition of the
embryo government of Rebel Slave-mongers, on two grounds ;
first, because its Independence is not in fact established ; and
secondly, because, even if in fact established, its Recognition is
impossible without criminal complicity with Slavery ; and lastly,
how these sarae Christian Powers are firmly bound by the same
two-fold reasons against any concession of Ocean rights to this
hideous pretender.
It only remains that the Republic should lift itself to the height
of its great duties. War is hard to bear — with its waste, its pains,
its wounds, its funerals. But in this war we have not been
choosers. We have been challenged to the defence of our
country, and in this sacred cause, to crush Slavery. There is no
alternative. Slavery began the combat, staking its life and
determined to rule or die. That we may continue freemen there
must be no slaves ; so that our own security is linked with the
redemption of a race. Blessed lot, amidst the harshness of war,
to wield the arms and deal the blows under which the monster
will surely fall ! The battle is mighty, for into Slavery has
entered the Spirit of Evil. It is persistent, for such a gathered
wickedness, concentrated, aroused and maddened, must have a
tenacity of life, which will not yield at once. But might will not
save it now ; nor time either.
That the whole war is contained in Slavery may be seen, not
only in the acts of the National Government, but also in the
confessions of the Rebel Slave-mongers. Already the President,
by Proclamation, has announced that the slaves throughout the
whole rebel region " are and henceforward shall be free," and, in
order to give the fullest assurance of the irreversible character of
this sublime edict, he has further announced " that the Executive
Govemraent of the United States, including the military and
naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom
of such persons." Already an enlightened Comraission has been
constituted, to consider how these thronging freedraen can be
best employed for their own good and the national defence. And

76
already the sons of Africa, as mustered soldiers of the Union,
have put forth a discipUne and a bravery, not unworthy of their
fathers of old, when the prophet Jeremiah said, " Let the mighty
men come forth, the Ethiopians that handle the shield ; " (cap,
xlvi., V. 9,) and stfll further, by their stature, by their appearance
in the ranks and even by the unexpected testimony of sanitary
statistics — according to which for every black soldier disabled by
sickness there are more than ten white, thus making the army
health of the black ten times as sure as that of the white — by all
these things, they have shown that the Father of History, who is
our earliest classical authority, was not entirely mistaken when
he spoke of Ethiopia as " the raost distant region of the earth,
whose inhabitants are the tallest, raost beautiful and most long-
lived of the huraan race." (Herodotus III., 114.) _ But even if
these acts of the National Govemraent were less significant, all
doubt is reraoved by the Rebel Slave-mongers themselves, who in
Satanic audacity, openly avow that Slavery is the end and aim of
the Government which they seek to establish, so that every blow
which is struck by them is struck for Slavery. Therefore, in
battling against the RebeUion we battle against Slavery. Free
dora is the growing inspiration of our armies and the just
inscription of our banners. By this sign conquer. Such a war
is not in any just sense a war of subjugation ; but a war of
Liberation — in order to save the Republic from a petty oligarchy
of task-masters, and to rescue four millions of human beings frora
a cruel oppression. Not to subjugate but to liberate is the object
of our Holy War. And yet British statesraen, forgetting for the
raoment all moral distinctions — forgetting God who will not be
forgotten — gravely announce that our cause must fail ! Alas !
individual wickedness is too often successful ; but a pretended
Nation, suckled in wickedness and boasting its wickedness — a
new Sodom, with all the guilt of the old, waiting to be blasted
and yet, in its effrontery, openly seeking the fellowship of
Christian Powers — is doomed to defeat. Toleration of such a
pretension is practical Atheism. Chronology and geography are
both offended by it. Piety stands aghast. In this age of light
and in countries boasting civilization, there can be no place for
its barbarous plenipotentiaries. As well expect crocodiles crawl
ing on the pavements of London and Paris, or the carnivorous
idols of Africa installed for worship in Westminster Abbey and
Notre Dame,
Even if the Republic were less strong, yet I am glad to believe
that the Rebellion must fail, from the essential impossibility of any
such wicked success. The responsibilities of the Christian Powers
would be increased by our weakness. Behind our blockade there
would be a moral blockade ; behind our armies there would be the
aroused judgment of the civiUzed word. But not on this account
can we hesitate. This is no time to stop. Forward; Forward.

77
Thus do I, who formerly pleaded so often for peace, now sound to
arms. But it is because, in this terrible moraent, there is no
other way to that sincere and solid peace without which there will
be endless war. Even on economic grounds, it were better that
this war should proceed, rather than recognize any partition,
which, beginning with huraihation, must involve the perpetuation
of armaments and break out again in blood. But there is some
thing worse than waste of money ; it is waste of character. Give
me any peace but a Liberticide peace. In other days the immense
eloquence of Burke was stirred against a Regicide peace. But a
peace founded on the killing of a king is not so bad as a peace
founded on the killing of Liberty ; nor can the saddest scenes of
such a peace be so sad as the daily life which is legalized by
Slavery, A Queen on the scaffold is not so pitiful a sight as a
woman on the auction-block. Therefore, I say again. Forward !
Forward !
But while thus steady in our purpose at home, we must not
neglect that proper moderation abroad, which becomes the con
sciousness of our strength and the nobleness of our cause. The
mistaken sympathy which Foreign Powers now bestow upon
Slavery, — or it may be the mistaken insensibility — under the
plausible name of " neutrality," which they profess — will be worse
for them than for us. For them it will be a record of sharae which
their children would gladly blot out with tears. Por us it will be
only another obstacle vanquished in the battle for Civilization,
where unhappily false friends are mingled with open enemies.
Even if the cause shall seem for a while imperilled from Foreign
Powers, yet our duties are none the less urgent. If the pressure
be great, the resistance must be greater ; nor can there be any
retreat. Come weal or woe this is the place for us to stand.
I know not if a Republic like ours can count even now upon
the certain friendship of any European Power, unless it be the
Republic of William Tell. The very name is unwelcome to the
full-blown representatives of old Europe, who forget, how proudly,
even in modern history, Venice bore the title of Serenissima
Respublica, It will be for us to change all this, and we shall do
it. Our successful example will be enough. Thus far we have
been known, chiefly through that vital force which Slavery could
only degrade but not subdue. Now at last, by the death of
Slavery, will the Republic begin to live. For what is life without
Liberty ? Stretching from ocean to ocean — teeming with popula
tion — bountiful in resources of all kinds — and thrice-happy in
universal enfranchisement — it will be more than conqueror.
Nothing too vast for its power ; nothing too minute for its care.
Triumphant over the foulest wrong ever inflicted — after the blood
iest war ever waged — it will know the majesty of Right and the
beauty of Peace — prepared always to uphold the one and to culti
vate the other. Strong in its own mighty stature — filled with all

78
the fulness of a new life and covered with a panoply of renown,
it will confess that no dominion is of value which does not
contribute to human happinessl Born in this latter day and the
child of its own struggles, without ancestral claims, but heir of
all the ages — it will stand forth to assert the dignity of man, and
wherever any member of the Huraan Faraily is to be succored,
there its voice will reach — as the voice of Crorawell reached
across France even to the persecuted mountaineers of the Alps.
Such will be this Republic ; — upstart among the nations. Aye !
as the steam-engine, the telegraph and chloroform are upstart.
Comforter and Helper like these, it can know no bounds to its
empire over a wilUng world. But the first stage is the death of
Slavery.

Date Due
All books are subject to recall after two weeks.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 01403 5662

;!sx