"Correspondence relating to the Civil War in the United States of North
America." No. 8. To Russell.]
[Footnote 907: _Ibid._, No. 10. Russell to Stuart, Aug. 7, 1862.]
[Footnote 908: _Ibid._, 1863, _Lords_, Vol. XXV. "Further correspondence
relating to the Civil War in the United States of North America." No. 2.
To Stuart.]
[Footnote 909: _Ibid._, 1863, _Lords_, Vol. XXIX. "Correspondence
relating to the Civil War in the United States of North America," No.
20. Stuart to Russell, Aug. 16, 1862.]
[Footnote 910: See _ante_, p. 37.]
[Footnote 911: State Department, Eng., Vol. 78, No. 119. Adams to
Seward, Feb. 21, 1862. This supplemented a similar representation made
on Jan. 17, 1862. (_U.S. Messages and Documents, 1862-3_, Pt. I,
p. 16.)]
[Footnote 912: e.g., Motley, _Correspondence_, II, pp. 64-5. To O.W.
Holmes, Feb. 26, 1862.]
[Footnote 913: _U.S. Messages and Documents, 1862-3_, Pt. I, p. 140.
Adams to Seward, July 17, 1862.]
[Footnote 914: Bancroft, _Seward_, II, p. 336.]
[Footnote 915: _U.S. Messages and Documents, 1862-3_, Pt. I, p. 191.
Adams to Seward, Sept. 12, 1862.]
[Footnote 916: _Ibid._, p. 199.]
[Footnote 917: _Ibid._, p. 195.]
[Footnote 918: _Ibid._, p. 202. Seward to Adams, Sept. 26, 1862. Lyons,
on his return to Washington, wrote that he found Seward's influence much
lessened, and that he had fallen in public estimation by his "signing
the Abolition Proclamation, which was imposed upon him, in opposition to
all his own views, by the Radical Party in the Cabinet." (Russell
Papers. Lyons to Russell, Nov. 14, 1862.)]
[Footnote 919: Russell Papers. Stuart to Russell, Sept. 19, 1862.]
[Footnote 920: _U.S. Messages and Documents, 1862-3_, Pt. I, p. 202. The
instruction went into great detail as to conditions and means. A similar
instruction was sent to Paris, The Hague, and Copenhagen.]
[Footnote 921: There was much talk and correspondence on this project
from Sept., 1862, to March, 1864. Stuart was suspicious of some "trap."
Russell at one time thought the United States was secretly planning to
colonize ex-slaves in Central America. Some of the Colonies were in
favour of the plan. (Russell Papers. Stuart to Russell, Sept. 29, 1862.
F.O., Am., Vol. 878, No. 177. Lyons to Russell, Feb. 24, 1863.)]
[Footnote 922: Lyons Papers. To Lyons.]
[Footnote 923: Russell Papers. Stuart to Russell, Sept. 26, 1862.]
[Footnote 924: Gladstone Papers. British agents still residing in the
South believed the proclamation would have little practical effect, but
added that if actually carried out the cultivation of cotton "would be
as completely arrested as if an edict were pronounced against its future
growth," and pictured the unfortunate results for the world at large.
(F.O., Am., Vol. 846, No. 34. Cridland to Russell, Oct. 29, 1862.)]
[Footnote 925: See Rhodes, IV, 344, _notes_.]
[Footnote 926: October 6, 1862. The _Times_ had used the "last card"
phrase as early as Dec. 14, 1861, in speculations on the effect of
Sumner's agitation for emancipation.]
[Footnote 927: Oct. 6, 1862.]
[Footnote 928: e.g., _Dublin Nation_, Oct. 11, 1862. _Manchester
Guardian_, Oct. 7. _London Morning Advertiser_, Oct. 9. _North British
Review_, Oct., 1862. _London Press_, Oct. 11. _London Globe_, Oct. 6.
_London Examiner_, Oct. 11, editorial: "The Black Flag," and Oct. 18:
"The Instigation to Servile War." _Bell's Weekly Messenger_, Oct. 11.]
[Footnote 929: October, 1862.]
[Footnote 930: November, 1862.]
[Footnote 931: It is worthy of note that the French offer of joint
mediation made to Britain in October specified the danger of servile war
resulting from the proclamation as a reason for European action.
(France, _Documents Diplomatiques, 1862_, p. 142.)]
[Footnote 932: The _Times_, Oct. 7, 1862.]
[Footnote 933: Oct. 18, 1862.]
[Footnote 934: Communication in the _Times_, Nov. 7, 1862.]
[Footnote 935: Richardson, II, 360. Mason to Benjamin, Nov. 6, 1862.]
[Footnote 936: _Spectator_, Oct. 11, 1862.]
[Footnote 937: _Ibid._, Oct. 25, 1862.]
[Footnote 938: Rhodes, IV, 162-64.]
[Footnote 939: Perry, _Henry Lee Higginson_, p. 175.]
[Footnote 940: Rhodes, IV, p. 349, _note_. Bright to Sumner, Dec. 6,
1862.]
[Footnote 941: Rogers, _Speeches by John Bright_, I, pp. 216 ff.]
[Footnote 942: _Liberator_, Nov. 28, 1862, reports a meeting at Leigh,
Oct. 27, expressing sympathy with the North. At Sheffield, Dec. 31,
1862, an amended resolution calling for recognition of the South was
voted down and the original pro-Northern resolutions passed. There were
speakers on both sides. _Liberator_, Jan. 23, 1863.]
[Footnote 943: Motley, _Correspondence_, II, p. 113. J.S. Mill to
Motley, Jan. 26, 1863.]
[Footnote 944: Richardson, I, p. 273. Davis' order applied also to all
Northern white officers commanding negro troops. It proved an
idle threat.]
[Footnote 945: Russell Papers. Lyons to Russell, Dec. 30, 1862. And
again, Jan. 2, 1863. "If it do not succeed in raising a servile
insurrection, it will be a very unsuccessful political move for its
authors." Stoeckl in conference with Seward, expressed regret that the
emancipation proclamation had been issued, since it set up a further
barrier to the reconciliation of North and South--always the hope of
Russia. Seward replied that in executing the proclamation, there would
be, no doubt, many modifications. Stoeckl answered that then the
proclamation must be regarded as but a futile menace. (Russian Archives.
Stoeckl to F.O., Nov. 19-Dec. 1, 1862, No. 2171.)]
[Footnote 946: Rhodes, IV, p. 357.]
[Footnote 947: _U.S. Diplomatic Correspondence, 1863_, Pt. I, p. 55.
Adams to Seward, Jan. 16, 1863, transmitting this and other resolutions
presented to him. Adams by March 20 had reported meetings which sent
resolutions to him, from Sheffield, Chesterfield, Derbyshire, Crophills,
Salford, Cobham, Ersham, Weybridge, Bradford, Stroud, Bristol, Glasgow,
Liverpool, South London, Bath, Leeds, Bromley, Middleton, Edinburgh,
Birmingham, Aberdare, Oldham, Merthyr Tydfil, Paisley, Carlisle, Bury,
Manchester, Pendleton, Bolton, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Huddersfield, Ashford,
Ashton-under-Lyme, Mossley, Southampton, Newark, and York. See also
Rhodes, IV, 348-58, for résumé of meetings and opinions expressed.]
[Footnote 948: State Department, Eng., Vol. 81, No. 300. Adams to
Seward, Jan. 22, 1863.]
[Footnote 949: _U.S. Diplomatic Correspondence, 1863_, Pt. I, p. 100.
Adams to Seward, Feb. 5, 1863.]
[Footnote 950: Goddard, _Letters on the American Rebellion_, p. 287.
Goddard contributed seventy letters before 1863.]
[Footnote 951: _Ibid._, p. 307. Letter to _Daily Gazette_, May 2, 1863.]
[Footnote 952: _The Liberator_, Feb. 27, 1863. At Bristol the opposition
element introduced a resolution expressing abhorrence of slavery and the
hope that the war in America might end in total emancipation, but adding
that "at the same time [this meeting] cannot but regard the policy of
President Lincoln in relation to slavery, as partial, insincere,
inhuman, revengeful and altogether opposed to those high and noble
principles of State policy which alone should guide the counsels of a
great people." The resolution was voted down, and one passed applauding
Lincoln. The proposer of the resolution was also compelled to apologize
for slurring remarks on Thompson.]
[Footnote 953: _Atlantic Monthly_, XI, p. 525.]
[Footnote 954: Lincoln, _Complete Works_, II, p. 302.]
[Footnote 955: Trevelyan, _John Bright_, p. 306. Also Rhodes, IV, p.
351.]
[Footnote 956: Massie, _America: the Origin of Her Present Conflict_,
London, 1864. This action and the tour of the two delegates in America
did much to soothe wounded feelings which had been excited by a
correspondence in 1862-3 between English, French and American branches
of similar church organizations. See _New Englander_, April, 1863,
p. 288.]
[Footnote 957: Jan. 6, 1863.]
[Footnote 958: Published Oxford and London, 1863.]
[Footnote 959: Rhodes, IV, p. 355.]
[Footnote 960: Lutz, _Notes_. Schleiden's despatch, No. 1, 1863. German
opinion on the Civil War was divided; Liberal Germany sympathized
strongly with the North; while the aristocratic and the landowning class
stood for the South. The historian Karl Friedrich Neumann wrote a
three-volume history of the United States wholly lacking in historical
impartiality and strongly condemnatory of the South. (Geschichte der
Vereinigten Staaten, Berlin, 1863-66.) This work had much influence on
German public opinion. (Lutz, _Notes_.)]
[Footnote 961: _Liberator_, Feb. 20, 1863. Letter of J.P. Jewett to W.L.
Garrison, Jan. 30, 1863. "The few oligarchs in England who may still
sympathize with slavery and the Southern rebels, will be rendered
absolutely powerless by these grand and powerful uprisings of
THE PEOPLE."]
[Footnote 962: Duffus, _English Opinion_, p. 51.]
[Footnote 963: Argyll, _Autobiography_, II, pp. 196-7.]
[Footnote 964: Trevelyan, _John Bright_. Facsimile, opp. p. 303. Copy
sent by Sunmer to Bright, April, 1863.]
[Footnote 965: Russell Papers. Lyons to Russell, March 10, 1863. Lyons
was slow to favour the emancipation proclamation. The first favourable
mention I have found was on July 26, 1864. (Russell Papers. To Russell.)
In this view his diplomatic colleagues coincided. Stoeckl, in December,
1863, wrote that slavery was dead in the Central and Border States, and
that even in the South its form must be altered if it survived. (Russian
Archives, Stoeckl to F.O., Nov. 22-Dec. 4, 1863, No. 3358.) But
immediately after the second proclamation of January, 1863, Stoeckl
could see no possible good in such measures. If they had been made of
universal application it would have been a "great triumph for the
principle of individual liberty," but as issued they could only mean
"the hope of stirring a servile war in the South." _(Ibid._, Dec. 24,
1863-Jan. 5, 1864, No. 70.)]
CHAPTER XIII
THE LAIRD RAMS
The building in British ports of Confederate war vessels like the
_Alabama_ and the subsequent controversy and arbitration in relation
thereto have been exhaustively studied and discussed from every aspect
of legal responsibility, diplomatic relations, and principles of
international law. There is no need and no purpose here to review in
detail these matters. The purpose is, rather, to consider the
development and effect at the time of their occurrence of the principal
incidents related to Southern ship-building in British yards. The
_intention_ of the British Government is of greater importance in this
study than the correctness of its action.
Yet it must first be understood that the whole question of a
belligerent's right to procure ships of war or to build them in the
ports of neutral nations was, in 1860, still lacking definite
application in international law. There were general principles already
established that the neutral must not do, nor permit its subjects to do,
anything directly in aid of belligerents. The British Foreign Enlistment
Act, notification of which had been given in May, 1861, forbade subjects
to "be concerned in the equipping, furnishing, fitting out, or arming,
of any ship or vessel, with intent or in order that such ship or vessel
shall be employed in the service ..." of a belligerent, and provided for
punishment of individuals and forfeiture of vessels if this prohibition
were disobeyed. But the Act also declared that such punishment, or
seizure, would follow on due proof of the offence. Here was the weak
point of the Act, for in effect if secrecy were maintained by offenders
the proof was available only after the offence had been committed and
one of the belligerents injured by the violation of the law. Over twenty
years earlier the American Government, seeking to prevent its subjects
from committing unneutral acts in connection with the Canadian rebellion
of 1837, had realized the weakness of its neutrality laws as they then
stood, and by a new law of March 10, 1838, hastily passed and therefore
limited to two years' duration, in the expectation of a more perfect
law, but intended as a clearer exposition of neutral duty, had given
federal officials power to act and seize _on suspicion_, leaving the
proof of guilt or innocence to be determined later. But the British
interpretation of her own neutrality laws was that proof was required in
advance of seizure--an interpretation wholly in line with the basic
principle that a man was innocent until proved guilty, but fatal to that
preservation of strict neutrality which Great Britain had so promptly
asserted at the beginning of the Civil War[966].
The South wholly lacking a navy or the means to create one, early
conceived the idea of using neutral ports for the construction of war
vessels. Advice secured from able British lawyers was to the effect that
if care were taken to observe the strict letter of the Foreign
Enlistment Act, by avoiding warlike equipment, a ship, even though her
construction were such as to indicate that she was destined to become a
ship of war, might be built by private parties in British yards. The
three main points requiring careful observance by the South were
concealment of government ownership and destination, no war equipment
and no enlistment of crew in British waters.
The principal agent selected by the South to operate on these lines was
Captain J.D. Bullock, who asserts in his book descriptive of his work
that he never violated British neutrality law and that prevailing legal
opinion in England supported him in this view[967]. In March, 1862, the
steamer _Oreto_ cleared from Liverpool with a declared destination of
"Palermo, the Mediterranean, and Jamaica." She was not heard of until
three months later when she was reported to be at Nassau completing her
equipment as a Southern war vessel. In June, Adams notified Russell
"that a new and still more powerful war-steamer was nearly ready for
departure from the port of Liverpool on the same errand[968]." He
protested that such ships violated the neutrality of Great Britain and
demanded their stoppage and seizure. From June 23 to July 28, when this
second ship, "No. 290" (later christened the _Alabama_) left Liverpool,
Adams and the United States consul at Liverpool, Dudley, were busy in
securing evidence and in renewing protests to the Government. To each
protest Russell replied in but a few lines that the matter had been
referred to the proper departments, and it was not until July 26, when
there was received from Adams an opinion by an eminent Queen's Counsel,
Collier, that the affidavits submitted were conclusive against the
"290," that Russell appears to have been seriously concerned. On July
28, the law officers of the Crown were asked for an immediate opinion,
and on the thirty-first telegrams were sent to Liverpool and to other
ports to stop and further examine the vessel. But the "290" was well
away and outside of British waters[969].
The _Alabama_, having received guns and munitions by a ship, the
_Bahama_, sent out from England to that end, and having enlisted in the
Confederate Navy most of the British crews of the two vessels, now
entered upon a career of destruction of Northern commerce. She was not a
privateer, as she was commonly called at the time, but a Government
vessel of war specially intended to capture and destroy merchant ships.
In short her true character, in terms of modern naval usage, was that of
a "commerce destroyer." Under an able commander, Captain Semmes, she
traversed all oceans, captured merchant ships and after taking coal and
stores from them, sank or burnt the captures; for two years she evaded
battle with Northern war vessels and spread so wide a fear that an
almost wholesale transfer of the flag from American to British or other
foreign register took place, in the mercantile marine. The career of the
_Alabama_ was followed with increasing anger and chagrin by the North;
this, said the public, was a British ship, manned by a British crew,
using British guns and ammunition, whose escape from Liverpool had been
winked at by the British Government. What further evidence was necessary
of bad faith in a professed strict neutrality?
Nor were American officials far behind the public in suspicion and
anger. At the last moment it had appeared as if the Government were
inclined to stop the "290." Was the hurried departure of the vessel due
to a warning received from official sources? On November 21, Adams
reported that Russell complained in an interview of remarks made
privately by Bright, to the effect that warning had come from Russell
himself, and "seemed to me a little as if he suspected that Mr. Bright
had heard this from me[970]." Adams disavowed, and sincerely, any such
imputation, but at the same time expressed to Russell his conviction
that there must have been from some source a "leak" of the Government's
intention[971]. The question of advance warning to Bullock, or to the
Lairds who built the _Alabama_, was not one which was likely to be
officially put forward in any case; the real issue was whether an
offence to British neutrality law had been committed, whether it would
be acknowledged as such, and still more important, whether repetitions
of the offence would be permitted. The _Alabama_, even though she might,
as the American assistant-secretary of the Navy wrote, be "giving us a
sick turn[972]," could not by herself greatly affect the issue of the
war; but many _Alabamas_ would be a serious matter. The belated
governmental order to stop the vessel was no assurance for the future
since in reply to Adams' protests after her escape, and to a prospective
claim for damages, Russell replied that in fact the orders to stop had
been given merely for the purpose of further investigation, and that in
strict law there had been no neglect of governmental duty[973]. If this
were so similar precautions and secrecy would prohibit official
interference in the issue from British ports of a whole fleet of
Southern war-vessels. Russell might himself feel that a real offence to
the North had taken place. He might write, "I confess the proceedings of
that vessel [the _Alabama_] are enough to _rile_ a more temperate
nation, and I owe a grudge to the Liverpool people on that
account[974]," but this was of no value to the North if the governmental
decision was against interference without complete and absolute proof.
It was therefore the concern of the North to find some means of bringing
home to the British Ministry the enormity of the offence in American
eyes and the serious danger to good relations if such offences were to
be continued. An immediate downright threat of war would have been
impolitic and would have stirred British pride to the point of
resentment. Yet American pride was aroused also and it was required of
Seward that he gain the Northern object and yet make no such threat as
would involve the two nations in war--a result that would have marked
the success of Southern secession. That Seward was able to find the way
in which to do this is evidence of that fertility of imagination and
gift in expedient which marked his whole career in the diplomacy of the
Civil War[975].
In that same month when Adams was beginning his protests on the "290,"
June, 1862, there had already been drawn the plans, and the contracts
made with the Laird Brothers at Liverpool, for the building of two
vessels far more dangerous than the _Alabama_ to the Northern cause.
These were the so-called Laird Rams. They were to be two hundred and
thirty feet long, have a beam of forty feet, be armoured with four and
one-half inch iron plate and be provided with a "piercer" at the prow,
about seven feet long and of great strength. This "piercer" caused the
ships to be spoken of as rams, and when the vessels were fully equipped
it was expected the "piercer" would be three feet under the surface of
the water. This was the distinguishing feature of the two ships; it was
unusual construction, nearly impossible of use in an ordinary battle at
sea, but highly dangerous to wooden ships maintaining a close blockade
at some Southern port. While there was much newspaper comment in England
that the vessels were "new _Alabamas_," and in America that they were
"floating fortresses," suitable for attack upon defenceless Northern
cities, their primary purpose was to break up the blockading
squadrons[976].
Shortly before the escape of the _Alabama_ and at a time when there was
but little hope the British Government would seize her and shortly after
the news was received in Washington that still other vessels were
planned for building in the Lairds' yards, a Bill was introduced in
Congress authorizing the President to issue letters of marque and
privateering. This was in July, 1862, and on the twelfth, Seward wrote
to Adams of the proposed measure specifying that the purpose was to
permit privateers to seek for and capture or destroy the _Alabama_ or
other vessels of a like type. He characterized this as a plan "to
organize the militia of the seas by issuing letters of marque and
reprisal[977]." Neither here nor at any time did Seward or Adams allege
in diplomatic correspondence any other purpose than the pursuit of
_Alabamas_, nor is it presumable that in July, 1862, the construction
plans of the Rams were sufficiently well known to the North to warrant a
conclusion that the later purpose of the proposed privateering fleet was
_at first_ quite other than the alleged purpose. Probably the Bill
introduced in July, 1862, was but a hasty reaction to the sailing of the
_Oreto_ (or _Florida_) and to the failure of early protests in the case
of the _Alabama_. Moreover there had been an earlier newspaper agitation
for an increase of naval power by the creation of a "militia of the
seas," though with no clear conception of definite objects to be
attained. This agitation was now renewed and reinforced and many public
speeches made by a General Hiram Wallbridge, who had long advocated an
organization of the mercantile marine as an asset in times of war[978].
But though introduced in the summer of 1862, the "privateering bill" was
not seriously taken up until February, 1863.
In the Senate discussion of the Bill at the time of introduction,
Senator Grimes, its sponsor, declared that the object was to encourage
privateers to pursue British ships when, as was expected, they should
"turn Confederate." Sumner objected that the true business of privateers
was to destroy enemy commerce and that the South had no such _bona fide_
commerce. Grimes agreed that this was his opinion also, but explained
that the administration wanted the measure passed so that it might have
in its hands a power to be used if the need arose. The general opinion
of the Senate was opposed and the matter was permitted to lapse, but
without definite action, so that it could at any time be called up
again[979]. Six months later the progress of construction and the
purpose of the rams at Liverpool were common knowledge. On January 7,
1863, the privateering bill again came before the Senate, was referred
to the committee on naval affairs, reported out, and on February 17 was
passed and sent to the House of Representatives, where on March 2 it was
given a third reading and passed without debate[980]. In the Senate,
Grimes now clearly stated that the Bill was needed because the
Confederates "are now building in England a fleet of vessels designed to
break our blockade of their coast," and that the privateers were to
"assist in maintaining blockades." There was no thorough debate but a
few perfunctory objections were raised to placing so great a power in
the hands of the President, while Sumner alone appears as a consistent
opponent arguing that the issue of privateers would be dangerous to the
North since it might lead to an unwarranted interference with neutral
commerce. No speaker outlined the exact method by which privateers were
to be used in "maintaining blockades"; the bill was passed as an
"administration measure."
Coincidently, but as yet unknown in Washington, the chagrin of Russell
at the escape of the _Alabama_ had somewhat lost its edge. At first he
had been impressed with the necessity of amending the Foreign Enlistment
Act so as to prevent similar offences and had gained the approval of the
law officers of the Crown. Russell had even offered to take up with
America an agreement by which both countries were to amend their
neutrality laws at the same moment. This was in December, 1862, but now
on February 14, 1863, he wrote to Lyons that the project of amendment
had been abandoned as the Cabinet saw no way of improving the law[981].
While this letter to Lyons was on its way to America, a letter from
Seward was _en route_, explaining to Adams the meaning of the
privateering bill.
"The Senate has prepared a Bill which confers upon the President of the
United States the power to grant letters of marque and reprisal in any
war in which the country may at any time be engaged, and it is expected
that the Bill will become a law. Lord Lyons suggests that the
transaction may possibly be misapprehended abroad, if it come upon
foreign powers suddenly and without any explanations. You will be at
liberty to say that, as the Bill stands, the executive Government will
be set at liberty to put the law in force in its discretion, and that
thus far the proper policy in regard to the exercise of that discretion
has not engaged the President's attention. I have had little hesitation
in saying to Lord Lyons that if no extreme circumstances occur, there
will be entire frankness on the part of the Government in communicating
to him upon the subject, so far as to avoid any surprise on the part of
friendly nations, whose commerce or navigation it might be feared would
be incidentally and indirectly affected, if it shall be found expedient
to put the Act in force against the insurgents of the United
States[982]."
Certainly this was vague explanation, yet though the main object might
be asserted "to put the act in force against the insurgents," the hint
was given that the commerce of friendly neutrals might be "incidentally
and indirectly affected." And so both Lyons and Seward understood the
matter, for on February 24, Lyons reported a long conversation with
Seward in which after pointing out the probable "bad effect" on Europe,
Lyons received the reply that some remedy must be found for the fact
that "the law did not appear to enable the British Government to
prevent" the issue of Confederate "privateers[983]." On March 8, Seward
followed this up by sending to Lyons an autograph letter:
"I am receiving daily such representations from our sea-ports
concerning the depredations on our commerce committed by the
vessels built and practically fitted out in England, that I
do most sincerely apprehend a new element is entering into
the unhappy condition of affairs, which, with all the best
dispositions of your Government and my own, cannot long be
controlled to the preservation of peace.
"If you think well of it, I should like that you should
confidentially inform Earl Russell that the departure of more
armed vessels under insurgent-rebel command from English
ports is a thing to be deprecated above all things."
On March 9th, Lyons had a long talk with Seward about this, and it
appears that Lincoln had seen the letter and approved it. Seward stated
that the New York Chamber of Commerce had protested about the _Alabama_,
declaring:
"That no American merchant vessels would get freights--that
even war with England was preferable to this--that in that
case the maritime enterprise of the country would at least
find a profitable employment in cruising against British
trade."
Seward went on to show the necessity of letters of marque, and Lyons
protested vigorously and implied that war must result.
"Mr. Seward said that he was well aware of the inconvenience
not to say the danger of issuing Letters of Marque: that he
should be glad to delay doing so, or to escape the necessity
altogether; but that really unless some intelligence came
from England to allay the public exasperation, the measure
would be unavoidable[984]."
Lyons was much alarmed, writing that the feeling in the North must not
be underestimated and pointing out that the newspapers were dwelling on
the notion that under British interpretation of her duty as a neutral
Mexico, if she had money, could build ships in British ports to cruise
in destruction of French commerce, adding that "one might almost
suppose" some rich American would give the funds to Mexico for the
purpose and so seek to involve England in trouble with France[985].
Lyons had also been told by Seward in their conversation of March 9,
that on that day an instruction had been sent to Adams to present to
Russell the delicacy of the situation and to ask for some assurance that
no further Southern vessels of war should escape from British ports.
This instruction presented the situation in more diplomatic language but
in no uncertain tone, yet still confined explanation of the privateering
bill as required to prevent the "destruction of our national navigating
interest, unless that calamity can be prevented by ... the enforcement
of the neutrality law of Great Britain[986]...."
Lyons' reports reached Russell before Seward's instruction was read to
him. Russell had already commented to Adams that American privateers
would find no Confederate merchant ships and that if they interfered
with neutral commerce the United States Government would be put in an
awkward position. To this Adams replied that the privateers would seek
and capture, if possible, vessels like the _Alabama_, but Russell asked
Lyons to find out "whether in any case they [privateers] will be
authorized to interfere with neutral commerce, and if in any case in
what case, and to what extent[987]." Three days later, on March 26,
Adams presented his instructions and these Russell regarded as "not
unfriendly in tone," but in the long conversation that ensued the old
result was reached that Adams declared Great Britain negligent in
performance of neutral duty, while Russell professed eagerness to stop
Southern shipbuilding if full evidence was "forthcoming." Adams
concluded that "he had worked to the best of his power for peace, but it
had become a most difficult task." Upon this Russell commented to Lyons,
"Mr. Adams fully deserves the character of having always laboured for
peace between our two Nations. Nor I trust will his efforts, and those
of the two Governments fail of success[988]."
In these last days of March matters were in fact rapidly drawing to a
head both in America and England. At Washington, from March seventh to
the thirty-first, the question of issuing letters of marque and reprisal
had been prominently before the Cabinet and even Welles who had opposed
them was affected by unfavourable reports received from Adams as to the
intentions of Great Britain. The final decision was to wait later news
from England[989]. This was Seward's idea as he had not as yet received
reports of the British reaction to his communications through Lyons and
Adams. March 27 was the critical day of decision in London, as it was
also the day upon which public and parliamentary opinion was most
vigorously debated in regard to Great Britain's neutral duty. Preceding
this other factors of influence were coming to the front. In the first
days of March, Slidell, at Paris, had received semi-official assurances
that if the South wished to build ships in French yards "we should be
permitted to arm and equip them and proceed to sea[990]." This
suggestion was permitted to percolate in England with the intention, no
doubt, of strengthening Bullock's position there. In the winter of
1862-3, orders had been sent to the Russian Baltic fleet to cruise in
western waters and there was first a suspicion in America, later a
conviction, that the purpose of this cruise was distinctly friendly to
the North--that the orders might even extend to actual naval aid in case
war should arise with England and France. In March, 1863, this
was but vague rumour, by midsummer it was a confident hope, by
September-October, when Russian fleets had entered the harbours of New
York and San Francisco, the rumour had become a conviction and the
silence of Russian naval officers when banqueted and toasted was
regarded as discreet confirmation. There was no truth in the rumour, but
already in March curious surmises were being made even in England, as to
Russian intentions, though there is no evidence that the Government was
at all concerned. The truth was that the Russian fleet had been ordered
to sea as a precaution against easy destruction in Baltic waters, in
case the difficulties developing in relation to Poland should lead to
war with France and England[991].
In England, among the people rather than in governmental England, a
feeling was beginning to manifest itself that the Ministry had been lax
in regard to the _Alabama_, and as news of her successes was received
this feeling was given voice. Liverpool, at first almost wholly on the
side of the Lairds and of Southern ship-building, became doubtful by
the very ease with which the _Alabama_ destroyed Northern ships.
Liverpool merchants looked ahead and saw that their interests might,
after all, be directly opposed to those of the ship-builders. Meetings
were held and the matter discussed. In February, 1863, such a meeting at
Plaistow, attended by the gentry of the neighbourhood, but chiefly by
working men, especially by dock labourers and by men from the
ship-building yards at Blackwall, resolved that "the Chairman be
requested to write to the Prime Minister of our Queen, earnestly
entreating him to put in force, with utmost vigilance, the law of
England against such ships as the _Alabama_[992]." Such expressions were
not as yet widespread, nor did the leading papers, up to April, indulge
in much discussion, but British _doubt_ was developing[993].
Unquestionably, Russell himself was experiencing a renewed doubt as to
Britain's neutral duty. On March 23, he made a speech in Parliament
which Adams reported as "the most satisfactory of all the speeches he
has made since I have been at this post[994]." On March 26, came the
presentation by Adams of Seward's instruction of which Russell wrote to
Lyons as made in no unfriendly tone and as a result of which Adams
wrote: "The conclusion which I draw ... is, that the Government is
really better disposed to exertion, and feels itself better sustained
for action by the popular sentiment than ever before[995]." Russell told
Adams that he had received a note from Palmerston "expressing his
approbation of every word" of his speech three days before. In a portion
of the despatch to Seward, not printed in the Diplomatic Correspondence,
Adams advised against the issue of privateers, writing, "In the present
favourable state of popular mind, it scarcely seems advisable to run the
risk of changing the current in Great Britain by the presentation of a
new issue which might rally all national pride against us as was done in
the _Trent_ case[996]." That Russell was indeed thinking of definite
action is foreshadowed by the advice he gave to Palmerston on March 27,
as to the latter's language in the debate scheduled for that day on the
Foreign Enlistment Act. Russell wrote, referring to the interview
with Adams:
"The only thing which Adams could think of when I asked him
what he had to propose in reference to the _Alabama_ was that
the Government should declare their disapproval of the
fitting out of such ships of war to prey on
American commerce.
"Now, as the fitting out and escape of the _Alabama_ and
_Oreto_ was clearly an evasion of our law, I think you can
have no difficulty in declaring this evening that the
Government disapprove of all such attempts to elude our law
with a view to assist one of the belligerents[997]."
But the tone of parliamentary debate did not bear out the hopeful view
of the American Minister. It was, as Bright wrote to Sumner, "badly
managed and told against us[998]," and Bright himself participated in
this "bad management." For over a year he had been advocating the cause
of the North in public speeches and everywhere pointing out to
unenfranchised England that the victory of the North was essential to
democracy in all Europe. Always an orator of power he used freely
vigorous language and nowhere more so than in a great public meeting of
the Trades Unions of London in St. James' Hall, on March 26, the evening
before the parliamentary debate. The purpose of this meeting was to
bring public pressure on the Government in favour of the North, and the
pith of Bright's speech was to contrast the democratic instincts of
working men with the aristocratic inclinations of the Government[999].
Reviewing "aristocratic" attitude toward the Civil War, Bright said:
"Privilege thinks it has a great interest in this contest,
and every morning, with blatant voice, it comes into your
streets and curses the American Republic. Privilege has
beheld an afflicting spectacle for many years past. It has
beheld thirty millions of men, happy and prosperous, without
emperor, without king, without the surroundings of a court,
without nobles, except such as are made by eminence in
intellect and virtue, without State bishops and
State priests.
"'Sole venders of the lore which works salvation,' without
great armies and great navies, without great debt and without
great taxes.
* * * * *
"You wish the freedom of your country. You wish it for
yourselves.... Do not then give the hand of fellowship to the
worst foes of freedom that the world has ever seen.... You
will not do this. I have faith in you. Impartial history
will tell that, when your statesmen were hostile or coldly
neutral, when many of your rich men were corrupt, when your
press--which ought to have instructed and defended--was
mainly written to betray, the fate of a Continent and of its
vast population being in peril, you clung to freedom with an
unfailing trust that God in his infinite mercy will yet make
it the heritage of all His children[1000]."
The public meeting of March 26 was the most notable one in support of
the North held throughout the whole course of the war, and it was also
the most notable one as indicating the rising tide of popular demand for
more democratic institutions. That it irritated the Government and gave
a handle to Southern sympathizers in the parliamentary debate of March
27 is unquestioned. In addition, if that debate was intended to secure
from the Government an intimation of future policy against Southern
shipbuilding it was conducted on wrong lines for _immediate_
effect--though friends of the North may have thought the method used was
wise for _future_ effect. This method was vigorous attack. Forster,
leading in the debate[1001], called on Ministers to explain the
"flagrant" violation of the Foreign Enlistment Act, and to offer some
pledge for the future; he asserted that the Government should have been
active on its own initiative in seeking evidence instead of waiting to
be urged to enforce the law, and he even hinted at a certain degree of
complicity in the escape of the _Alabama_. The Solicitor-General
answered in a legal defence of the Government, complained of the offence
of America in arousing its citizens against Great Britain upon
unjustifiable grounds, but did not make so vigorous a reply as might,
perhaps, have been expected. Still he stood firmly on the ground that
the Government could not act without evidence to convict--in itself a
statement that might well preclude interference with the Rams. Bright
accused the Government of a "cold and unfriendly neutrality," and
referred at length to the public meeting of the previous evening:
"If you had last night looked in the faces of three thousand
of the most intelligent of the artisan classes in London, as
I did, and heard their cheers, and seen their sympathy for
that country for which you appear to care so little, you
would imagine that the more forbearing, the more generous,
and the more just the conduct of the Government to the United
States, the more it would recommend itself to the magnanimous
feelings of the people of this country."
This assumption of direct opposition between Parliament and the people
was not likely to win or to convince men, whether pro-Southern or not,
who were opponents of the speaker's long-avowed advocacy of more
democratic institutions in England. It is no wonder then that Laird, who
had been castigated in the speeches of the evening, rising in defence of
the conduct of his firm, should seek applause by declaring, "I would
rather be handed down to posterity as the builder of a dozen _Alabamas_
than as a man who applies himself deliberately to set class against
class, and to cry up the institutions of another country which, when
they come to be tested, are of no value whatever, and which reduce the
very name of liberty to an utter absurdity." This utterance was greeted
with great cheering--shouted not so much in approval of the _Alabama_ as
in approval of the speaker's defiance of Bright.
[Illustration: WILLIAM EDWARD FORSTER (1851)]
In short, the friends of the North, if they sought some immediate pledge
by the Government, had gone the wrong way about to secure it. Vigour in
attack was no way to secure a favourable response from Palmerston.
Always a fighting politician in public it was inevitable that he should
now fight back. Far from making the statement recommended to him by
Russell, he concluded the debate by reasserting the correctness of
governmental procedure in the case of the _Alabama_, and himself with
vigour accused Forster and Bright of speaking in such a way as to
increase rather than allay American irritation. Yet a careful reading of
the speeches of both the Solicitor-General and of Palmerston, shows that
while vindicating the Government's conduct in the past, they were
avoiding _any_ pledge of whatever nature, for the future.
Adams was clearly disappointed and thought that the result of the debate
was "rather to undo in the popular mind the effect of Lord Russell's
speech than to confirm it[1002]." He and his English advisers were very
uneasy, not knowing whether to trust to Russell's intimations of more
active governmental efforts, or to accept the conclusion that his advice
had been rejected by Palmerston[1003]. Possibly if less anxious and
alarmed they would have read more clearly between the lines of
parliamentary utterances and have understood that their failure to hurry
the Government into public announcement of a new policy was no proof
that old policy would be continued. Disappointed at the result in
Parliament, they forgot that the real pressure on Government was coming
from an American declaration of an intention to issue privateers unless
something were done to satisfy that country. Certainly Russell was
unmoved by the debate for on April 3 he wrote to Palmerston:
"The conduct of the gentlemen who have contracted for the
ironclads at Birkenhead is so very suspicious that I have
thought it necessary to direct that they should be detained.
The Attorney-General has been consulted and concurs in the
measure, as one of policy, though not of strict law.
"We shall thus test the law, and if we have to pay damages we
have satisfied the opinion which prevails here as well as in
America that this kind of neutral hostility should not be
allowed to go on without some attempt to stop it[1004]."
Two days later, on April 5, the _Alexandra_, a vessel being equipped to
join the _Alabama_ as a commerce destroyer, was seized on the ground
that she was about to violate the Enlistment Act and a new policy, at
least to make a test case in law, was thereby made public. In fact, on
March 30, but three days after the debate of March 27, the case of the
_Alexandra_ had been taken up by Russell, referred to the law officers
on March 31, and approved by them for seizure on April 4[1005]. Public
meetings were quickly organized in support of the Government's action,
as that in Manchester on April 6, when six thousand people applauded the
seizure of the _Alexandra_, demanded vigorous prosecution of the Lairds
and others, and urged governmental activity to prevent any further
ship-building for the South[1006].
On April 7, Russell wrote to Lyons:
"The orders given to watch, and stop when evidence can be
procured, vessels apparently intended for the Confederate
service will, it is to be hoped, allay the strong feelings
which have been raised in Northern America by the escape from
justice of the _Oreto_ and _Alabama_[1007]."
It thus appears that orders had been issued to stop, on _evidence_ to be
sure, but on evidence of the vessels being "_apparently_ intended" for
the South. This was far from being the same thing as the previous
assertion that conclusive evidence was required. What, then, was the
basic consideration in Russell's mind leading to such a face-about on
declared policy? Chagrin at the very evident failure of existing
neutrality law to operate, recognition that there was just cause for the
rising ill-will of the North, no doubt influenced him, but more powerful
than these elements was the anxiety as to the real purpose and intent in
application of the American "privateering" Bill. How did Russell, and
Lyons, interpret that Bill and what complications did they foresee
and fear?
As previously stated in this chapter, the privateering Bill had been
introduced as an "administration measure" and for that reason passed
without serious debate. In the Cabinet it was opposed by Welles,
Secretary of the Navy, until he was overborne by the feeling that
"something must be done" because vessels were building in England
intended to destroy the blockade. The Rams under construction were
clearly understood to have that purpose. If privateers were to offset
the action of the Rams there must be some definite plan for their use.
Seward and Adams repeatedly complained of British inaction yet in the
same breath asserted that the privateers were intended to chase and
destroy _Alabamas_--a plan so foolish, so it seemed to British
diplomats, as to be impossible of acceptance as the full purpose of
Seward. How, in short, _could_ privateers make good an injury to
blockade about to be done by the Rams? If added to the blockading
squadrons on station off the Southern ports they would but become so
much more fodder for the dreaded Rams. If sent to sea in pursuit of
_Alabamas_ the chances were that they would be the vanquished rather
than the victors in battle. There was no Southern mercantile marine for
them to attack and privateering against "enemy's commerce" was thus out
of the question since there was no such commerce.
There remained but one reasonable supposition as to the intended use of
privateers. If the Rams compelled the relaxation of the close blockade
the only recourse of the North would be to establish a "cruising
squadron" blockade remote from the shores of the enemy. If conducted by
government war-ships such a blockade was not in contravention to British
interpretation of international law[1008]. But the Northern navy,
conducting a cruising squadron blockade was far too small to interfere
seriously with neutral vessels bringing supplies to the Confederacy or
carrying cotton from Southern ports. A "flood of privateers," scouring
the ocean from pole to pole might, conceivably, still render effective
that closing in of the South which was so important a weapon in the
Northern war programme.
This was Russell's interpretation of the American plan and he saw in it
a very great danger to British commerce and an inevitable ultimate clash
leading to war. Such, no doubt, it was Seward's desire should be
Russell's reaction, though never specifically explaining the exact
purpose of the privateers. Moreover, nine-tenths of the actual
blockade-running still going on was by British ships, and this being so
it was to be presumed that "privateers" searching for possible blockade
runners would commit all sorts of indignities and interferences with
British merchant ships whether on a blockade-running trip or engaged in
ordinary trade between non-belligerent ports.
Immediately on learning from Lyons details of the privateering bill,
Russell had instructed the British Minister at Washington to raise
objections though not formally making official protest, and had asked
for explanation of the exact nature of the proposed activities of such
vessels. Also he had prepared instructions to be issued by the
Admiralty to British naval commanders as to their duty of preventing
unwarranted interference with legitimate British commerce by
privateers[1009]. The alteration of governmental policy as indicated in
the arrest of the _Alexandra_, it might be hoped, would at least cause a
suspension of the American plan, but assurances were strongly desired.
Presumably Russell knew that Adams as a result of their conversations,
had recommended such suspension, but at Washington, Lyons, as yet
uninformed of the _Alexandra_ action, was still much alarmed. On April
13 he reported that Seward had read to him a despatch to Adams, relative
to the ships building in England, indicating that this was "a last
effort to avert the evils which the present state of things had made
imminent[1010]." Lyons had argued with Seward the inadvisability of
sending such a despatch, since it was now known that Russell had "spoken
in a satisfactory manner" about Confederate vessels, but Seward was
insistent. Lyons believed there was real cause for anxiety, writing:
"A good deal of allowance must be made for the evident design
of the Government and indeed of the people to intimidate
England, but still there can be little doubt that the
exasperation has reached such a point as to constitute a
serious danger. It is fully shared by many important members
of the Cabinet--nor are the men in high office exempt from
the overweening idea of the naval power of the United States,
which reconciles the people to the notion of a war with
England. Mr. Seward for a certain time fanned the flame in
order to recover his lost popularity. He is now, I believe,
seriously anxious to avoid going farther. But if strong
measures against England were taken up as a Party cry by the
Republicans, Mr. Seward would oppose very feeble resistance
to them. If no military success be obtained within a short
time, it may become a Party necessity to resort to some means
of producing an excitement in the country sufficient to
enable the Government to enforce the Conscription Act, and to
exercise the extra-legal powers conferred by the late
Congress, To produce such an excitement the more ardent of
the party would not hesitate to go, to the verge of a war
with England. Nay there are not a few who already declare
that if the South must be lost, the best mode to conceal the
discomfiture of the party and of the nation, would be to go
to war with England and attribute the loss of the South to
English interference[1011]."
On the same day Lyons wrote, privately:
"I would rather the quarrel came, if come it must, upon some
better ground for us than this question of the ships fitted
out for the Confederates. The great point to be gained in my
opinion, would be to prevent the ships sailing, without
leading the people here to think that they had gained their
point by threats[1012]."
So great was Lyons' alarm that the next day, April 14, he
cipher-telegraphed Monck in Canada that trouble was brewing[1013], but
soon his fears were somewhat allayed. On the seventeenth he could report
that Seward's "strong" despatch to Adams was not intended for
communication to Russell[1014], and on the twenty-fourth when
presenting, under instructions, Russell's protest against the
privateering plan he was pleased, if not surprised, to find that the
"latest advices" from England and the news of the seizure of the
_Alexandra_, had caused Seward to become very conciliatory. Lyons was
assured that the plan "was for the present at rest[1015]." Apparently
Seward now felt more security than did Lyons as to future British action
for three days later the British Minister wrote to Vice-Admiral Milne
that an American issue of letters of marque would surely come if
England did not stop Southern ship-building, and he wrote in such a way
as to indicate his own opinion that effective steps _must_ be taken to
prevent their escape[1016].
The whole tone and matter of Lyons' despatches to Russell show that he
regarded the crisis of relations in regard to Southern ship-building in
British yards as occurring in March-April, 1863. Seward became unusually
friendly, even embarrassingly so, for in August he virtually forced
Lyons to go on tour with him through the State of New York, thus making
public demonstration of the good relations of the two Governments. This
sweet harmony and mutual confidence is wholly contrary to the usual
historical treatment of the Laird Rams incident, which neglects the
threat of the privateering bill, regards American protests as steadily
increasing in vigour, and concludes with the "threat of war" note by
Adams to Russell just previous to the seizure of the Rams, in September.
Previously, however, American historians have been able to use only
American sources and have been at a loss to understand the privateering
plan, since Seward never went beyond a vague generalization of its
object in official utterances. It is the British reaction to that plan
which reveals the real "threat" made and the actual crisis of
the incident.
It follows therefore that the later story of the Rams requires less
extended treatment than is customarily given to it. The correct
understanding of this later story is the recognition that Great Britain
had in April given, a pledge and performed an act which satisfied Seward
and Adams that the Rams would not be permitted to escape. It was their
duty nevertheless to be on guard against a British relaxation of the
promise made, and the delay, up to the very last moment, in seizing the
Rams, caused American anxiety and ultimately created a doubt of the
sincerity of British actions.
Public opinion in England was steadily increasing against Southern
ship-building. On June 9, a memorial was sent to the Foreign Office by a
group of ship-owners in Liverpool, suggesting an alteration in the
Foreign Enlistment Act if this were needed to prevent the issue of
Southern ships, and pointing out that the "present policy" of the
Government would entail a serious danger to British commerce in the
future if, when England herself became a belligerent, neutral ports
could be used by the enemy to build commerce destroyers[1017]. The
memorial concluded that in any case it was a disgrace that British law
should be so publicly infringed. To this, Hammond, under-secretary, gave
the old answer that the law was adequate "provided proof can be obtained
of any act done with the intent to violate it[1018]." Evidently
ship-owners, as distinguished from ship-builders, were now acutely
alarmed. Meanwhile attention was fixed on the trial of the _Alexandra_,
and on June 22, a decision was rendered against the Government, but was
promptly appealed.
This decision made both Northern and Southern agents anxious and the
latter took steps further to becloud the status of the Rams. Rumours
were spread that the vessels were in fact intended for France, and when
this was disproved that they were being built for the Viceroy of Egypt.
This also proved to be untrue. Finally it was declared that the real
owners were certain French merchants whose purpose in contracting for
such clearly warlike vessels was left in mystery, but with the
intimation that Egypt was to be the ultimate purchaser. Captain Bullock
had indeed made such a contract of sale to French merchants but with the
proviso of resale to him, after delivery. On his part, Russell was
seeking _proof_ fully adequate to seizure, but this was difficult to
obtain and such as was submitted was regarded by the law officers as
inadequate. They reported that there was "no evidence capable of being
presented to a court of justice." He informed Adams of this legal
opinion at the moment when the latter, knowing the Rams to be nearing
completion, and fearing that Russell was weakening in his earlier
determination, began that series of diplomatic protests which very
nearly approached a threat of war.
At Washington also anxiety was again aroused by the court's decision in
the _Alexandra_ case, and shortly after the great Northern victories at
Vicksburg and Gettysburg, Seward wrote a despatch to Adams, July 11,
which has been interpreted as a definite threat of war. In substance
Seward wrote that he still felt confident the Government of Great
Britain would find a way to nullify the _Alexandra_ decision, but
renewed, in case this did not prove true, his assertion of Northern
intention to issue letters of marque, adding a phrase about the right to
"pursue" Southern vessels even into neutral ports[1019]. But there are
two considerations in respect to this despatch that largely negative the
belligerent intent attributed to it: Seward did not read or communicate
it to Lyons, as was his wont when anything serious was in mind; and he
did not instruct Adams to communicate it to Russell. The latter never
heard of it until the publication, in 1864, of the United States
diplomatic correspondence[1020].
In London, on July 11, Adams began to present to Russell evidence
secured by Consul Dudley at Liverpool, relative to the Rams and to urge
their immediate seizure. Adams here but performed his duty and was in
fact acting in accordance with Russell's own request[1021]. On July 16
he reported to Seward that the Roebuck motion for recognition of the
South[1022] had died ingloriously, but expressed a renewal of anxiety
because of the slowness of the government; if the Rams were to escape,
Adams wrote to Russell, on July 11, Britain would herself become a
participant in the war[1023]. Further affidavits were sent to Russell on
August 14, and on September 3, having heard from Russell that the
Government was legally advised "they cannot interfere in any way with
these vessels," Adams sent still more affidavits and expressed his
regret that his previous notes had not sufficiently emphasized the grave
nature of the crisis pending between the United States and Great
Britain. To this Russell replied that the matter was "under serious and
anxious consideration," to which, on September 5, in a long
communication, Adams wrote that if the Rams escaped: "It would be
superfluous in me to point out to your Lordship that this is war."
The phrase was carefully chosen to permit a denial of a threat of war on
the explanation that Great Britain would herself be participating in the
war. There is no question that at the moment Adams thought Russell's
"change of policy" of April was now thrown overboard, but the fact was
that on September 1, Russell had already given directions to take steps
for the detention of the Rams and that on September 3, positive
instructions were given to that effect[1024], though not carried out
until some days later. There had been no alteration in the "new policy"
of April; the whole point of the delay was governmental anxiety to
secure evidence sufficient to convict and thus to avoid attack for
acting in contradiction to those principles which had been declared to
be the compelling principles of non-interference in the case of the
_Alabama_. But so perfect were the arrangements of Captain Bullock that
complete evidence was not procurable and Russell was forced, finally, to
act without it[1025].
It would appear from a letter written by Russell to Palmerston, on
September 3, the day on which he gave the order to stop, that no Cabinet
approval for this step had yet formally been given, since Russell
notified Palmerston of his purpose and asked the latter, if he
disapproved, to call a Cabinet at once[1026]. The _plan_ to stop the
Rams must have long been understood for Palmerston called no Cabinet.
Moreover it is to be presumed that he was preparing the public for the
seizure, for on this same September 3, the _Times_, in a long editorial,
argued that the law as it stood (or was interpreted), was not in harmony
with true neutrality, and pointed out future dangers to British
commerce, as had the Liverpool ship-owners. Delane of the _Times_ was at
this period especially close to Palmerston, and it is at least
inferential that the editorial was an advance notice of governmental
intention to apply a policy known in intimate circles to have been for
some time matured. Four days later, while governmental action was still
unknown to the public another editorial advocated seizure of the
Rams[1027]. Russell had acted under the fear that one of the Rams might
slip away as had the _Alabama_; he had sent orders to stop and
investigate, but he delayed final seizure in the hope that better
evidence might yet be secured, conducting a rapid exchange of letters
with Lairds (the builders), seeking to get admissions from them. It was
only on September 9 that Lairds was officially ordered not to send the
vessels on a "trial trip," and it was not until September 16 that public
announcement was made of the Government's action[1028].
Russell has been regarded as careless and thoughtless in that it was not
until September 8 he relieved Adams' mind by assuring him the Rams would
be seized, even though three days before, on September 5, this
information had been sent to Washington. The explanation is Russell's
eager search for evidence to _convict_, and his correspondence with
Lairds which did not come to a head until the eighth, when the builders
refused to give information. To the builders Russell was writing as if a
governmental decision had not yet been reached. He could take no chance
of a "leak" through the American Minister. Once informed, Adams was well
satisfied though his immediate reaction was to criticize, not Russell,
but the general "timidity and vacillation" of the law officers of the
Crown[1029]. Two days later, having learned from Russell himself just
what was taking place, Adams described the "firm stand" taken by the
Foreign Secretary, noted the general approval by the public press and
expressed the opinion that there was now a better prospect of being able
to preserve friendly relations with England than at any time since his
arrival in London[1030]. Across the water British officials were
delighted with the seizure of the Rams. Monck in Canada expressed his
approval[1031]. Lyons reported a "great improvement" in the feeling
toward England and that Seward especially was highly pleased with
Russell's expressions, conveyed privately, of esteem for Seward together
with the hope that he would remain in office[1032].
The actual governmental seizure of the Rams did not occur until
mid-October, though they had been placed under official surveillance on
September 9. Both sides were jockeying for position in the expected
legal battle when the case should be taken up by the courts[1033]. At
first Russell even thought of making official protest to Mason in London
and a draft of such protest was prepared, approved by the Law Officers
and subsequently revised by Palmerston, but finally was not sent[1034].
Possibly it was thought that such a communication to Mason approached
too nearly a recognition of him in his desired official capacity, for in
December the protest ultimately directed to be made through
Consul-General Crawford at Havana, instructed him to go to Richmond and
after stating very plainly that he was in no way recognizing the
Confederacy to present the following:
"It appears from various correspondence the authenticity of
which cannot be doubted, that the Confederate Government
having no good ports free from the blockade of the Federals
have conceived the design of using the ports of the United
Kingdom for the purpose of constructing ships of war to be
equipped and armed to serve as cruisers against the commerce
of the United States of America, a State with which Her
Majesty is at peace...."
"These acts are inconsistent with the respect and comity
which ought to be shewn by a belligerent towards a
Neutral Power.
"Her Majesty has declared her Neutrality and means strictly
to observe it.
"You will therefore call upon Mr. Benjamin to induce his
Government to forbear from all acts tending to affect
injuriously Her Majesty's position[1035]."
To carry out this instruction there was required permission for Crawford
to pass through the blockade but Seward refused this when Lyons made the
request[1036].
Not everyone in Britain, however, approved the Government's course in
seizing the Rams. Legal opinion especially was very generally against
the act. Adams now pressed either for an alteration of the British law
or for a convention with America establishing mutual similar
interpretation of neutral duty. Russell replied that "until the trials
of the _Alexandra_ and the steam rams had taken place, we could hardly
be said to know what our law was, and therefore not tell whether it
required alteration. I said, however, that he might assure Mr. Seward
that the wish and intention of Government were to make our neutrality an
honest and bona-fide one[1037]." But save from extreme and avowed
Southern sympathizers criticism of the Government was directed less to
the stoppage of the Rams than to attacks of a political character,
attempting to depict the weakness of the Foreign Minister and his
humiliation of Great Britain in having "yielded to American threats."
Thus, February II, 1864, after the reassembling of Parliament, a party
attack was made on Russell and the Government by Derby in the House of
Lords. Derby approved the stopping of the Rams but sought to prove that
the Government had dishonoured England by failing to act of its own
volition until threatened by America. He cited Seward's despatch of July
II with much unction, that despatch now having appeared in the printed
American diplomatic correspondence with no indication that it was not an
instruction at once communicated to Russell. The attack fell flat for
Russell simply replied that Adams had never presented such an
instruction. This forced Derby to seek other ground and on February 15
he returned to the matter, now seeking to show by the dates of various
documents that "at the last moment" Adams made a threat of war and
Russell had yielded. Again Russell's reply was brief and to the effect
that orders to stop the Rams had been given before the communications
from Adams were received. Finally, on February 23, a motion in the
Commons called for all correspondence with Adams and with Lairds, The
Government consented to the first but refused that with Lairds and was
supported by a vote of 187 to 153.[1038]
Beginning with an incautious personal and petty criticism of Russell the
Tories had been driven to an attempt to pass what was virtually a vote
of censure on the Ministry yet they were as loud as was the Government
in praise of Adams and in approval of the seizure of the Rams. Naturally
their cause was weakened, and the Ministry, referring to expressions
made and intentions indicated as far back as March, 1863, thus hinting
without directly so stating that the real decision had then been made,
was easily the victor in the vote[1038]. Derby had committed an error as
a party leader and the fault rankled for again in April, 1864, he
attempted to draw Russell into still further discussion on dates of
documents. Russell's reply ignored that point altogether[1039]. It did
not suit his purpose to declare, flatly, the fact that in April
assurances had been given both to Adams and through Lyons to Seward,
that measures would be taken to prevent the departure of Southern
vessels from British ports. To have made this disclosure would have
required an explanation _why_ such assurance had been given and this
would have revealed the effect on both Russell and Lyons of the Northern
plan to create a _cruising squadron blockade by privateers_. _There_ was
the real threat. The later delays and seeming uncertainties of British
action made Adams anxious but there is no evidence that Russell ever
changed his purpose. He sought stronger evidence before acting and he
hoped for stronger support from legal advisers, but he kept an eye on
the Rams and when they had reached the stage where there was danger of
escape, he seized them even though the desired evidence was still
lacking[1040]. Seward's "privateering bill" plan possibly entered upon
in a moment of desperation and with no clear statement from him of its
exact application had, as the anxiety of British diplomats became
pronounced, been used with skill to permit, if not to state, the
interpretation they placed upon it, and the result had been the
cessation of that inadequate neutrality of which America complained.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 966: In other respects, also, this question of belligerent
ship-building and equipping in neutral ports was, in practice, vaguely
defined. As late as 1843 in the then existing Texan war of independence
against Mexico, the British Foreign Secretary, Aberdeen, had been all at
sea. Mexico made a contract for two ships of war with the English firm
of Lizardi & Company. The crews were to be recruited in England, the
ships were to be commanded by British naval officers on leave, and the
guns were to be purchased from firms customarily supplying the British
Navy. Aberdeen advised the Admiralty to give the necessary authority to
purchase guns. When Texas protested he at first seemed to think strict
neutrality was secured if the same privileges were offered that country.
Later he prohibited naval officers to go in command. One Mexican vessel,
the _Guadaloupe_, left England with full equipment as originally
planned; the other, the _Montezuma_, was forced to strip her equipment.
But both vessels sailed under British naval officers for these were
permitted to resign their commissions. They were later reinstated. In
all this there was in part a temporary British policy to aid Mexico, but
it is also clear that British governmental opinion was much in confusion
as to neutral duty in the case of such ships. See my book, _British
Interests and Activities in Texas_, Ch. IV.]
[Footnote 967: Bullock, _Secret Service under the Confederacy_.]
[Footnote 968: Bernard, _Neutrality of Great Britain during the American
Civil War_, p. 338-9.]
[Footnote 969: _Parliamentary Papers_, 1863, _Commons_, LXXII.
"Correspondence respecting the 'Alabama.'" Also _ibid._, "Correspondence
between Commissioner of Customs and Custom House Authorities at
Liverpool relating to the 'Alabama.'" The last-minute delay was due to
the illness of a Crown adviser.]
[Footnote 970: State Department, Eng., Vol. 81, No. 264. Adams to
Seward, Nov. 21, 1862.]
[Footnote 971: Selborne, in his _Memorials: Family and Personal_, II, p.
430, declared that in frequent official communication with all members
of the Cabinet at the time, "I never heard a word fall from any one of
them expressive of anything but regret that the orders for the detention
of the _Alabama_ were sent too late." Of quite different opinion is
Brooks Adams, in his "The Seizure of the Laird Rams" (_Proceedings_,
Mass. Hist. Soc., Vol. XLV, pp. 243-333). In 1865 his father, the
American Minister, made a diary entry that he had been shown what
purported to be a copy of a note from one V. Buckley to Caleb Huse,
Southern agent in England, warning him of danger to his "protegé." "This
Victor Buckley is a young clerk in the Foreign Office." (_Ibid._, p.
260, _note_.)]
[Footnote 972: Fox, _Confidential Correspondence_, I, p. 165. Fox to
Dupont, Nov. 7, 1862.]
[Footnote 973: It is interesting that the opinion of many Continental
writers on international law was immediately expressed in favour of the
American and against the British contention. This was especially true of
German opinion. (Lutz, _Notes_.)]
[Footnote 974: Lyons Papers. To Lyons, Dec. 20, 1862.]
[Footnote 975: I am aware that Seward's use of the "Privateering Bill,"
now to be recounted is largely a new interpretation of the play of
diplomacy in regard to the question of Southern ship-building in
England. Its significance became evident only when British
correspondence was available; but that correspondence and a careful
comparison of dates permits, and, as I think, requires a revised
statement of the incident of the Laird Rams.]
[Footnote 976: Bullock dreamed also of ascending rivers and laying
Northern cities under contribution. According to a statement made in
1898 by Captain Page, assigned to command the rams, no instructions as
to their use had been given him by the Confederate Government, but his
plans were solely to break the blockade with no thought of attacking
Northern cities. (Rhodes, IV. 385, _note_.)]
[Footnote 977: _U.S. Diplomatic Correspondence_, 1862, p. 134.]
[Footnote 978: Wallbridge, _Addresses and Resolutions_. Pamphlet. New
York, n.d. He began his agitation in 1856, and now received much popular
applause. His pamphlet quotes in support many newspapers from June,
1862, to September, 1863. Wallbridge apparently thought himself better
qualified than Welles to be Secretary of the Navy. Welles regarded his
agitation as instigated by Seward to get Welles out of the Cabinet.
Welles professes that the "Privateering Bill" slipped through Congress
unknown to him and "surreptitiously" (Diary, I, 245-50), a statement
difficult to accept in view of the Senate debates upon it.]
[Footnote 979: Cong. Globe, 37th Congress, 2nd Session, Pt. IV, pp.
3271, 3325 and 3336.]
[Footnote 980: _Ibid._, 3rd Session, Pt. I, pp. 220, 393, and Part II,
pp. 960, 1028, 1489.]
[Footnote 981: Brooks Adams, "The Seizure of the Laird Rams." (Mass.
Hist. Soc. _Proceedings_, Vol. XLV, pp. 265-6.)]
[Footnote 982: _U.S. Diplomatic Correspondence_, 1863, Pt. I, p. 116,
Feb. 19, 1863.]
[Footnote 983: F.O., Am., Vol. 878, No. 180. Lyons to Russell.]
[Footnote 984: _Ibid._, Vol. 879, No. 227. Lyons to Russell, March 10,
1863.]
[Footnote 985: _Ibid._, No. 235. Lyons to Russell, March 13, 1863.
Privately Lyons also emphasized American anger. (Russell Papers. To
Russell, March 24, 1863.)]
[Footnote 986: _U.S. Diplomatic Correspondence_, 1863, Pt. I, p. 141.
Seward to Adams, March 9, 1863.]
[Footnote 987: F.O., Am., Vol. 869, No. 147. Russell to Lyons, March 24,
1863.]
[Footnote 988: _Ibid._, Vol. 869, No. 155. Russell to Lyons, March 27,
1863.]
[Footnote 989: Welles, _Diary_, I, pp. 245-50.]
[Footnote 990: Bigelow, _Retrospections_, I, 634, Slidell to Benjamin,
March 4, 1863.]
[Footnote 991: For example of American contemporary belief and later
"historical tradition," see Balch, _The Alabama Arbitration_, pp. 24-38.
Also for a curious story that a large part of the price paid for Alaska
was in reality a repayment of expenses incurred by Russia in sending her
fleet to America, see _Letters of Franklin K. Lane_, p. 260. The facts
as stated above are given by F.A. Golder, _The Russian Fleet and the
Civil War_ (_Am. Hist. Rev_., July, 1915, pp. 801 _seq_.). The plan was
to have the fleet attack enemy commerce. The idea of aid to the North
was "born on American soil," and Russian officers naturally did nothing
to contradict its spread. In one case, however, a Russian commander was
ready to help the North. Rear-Admiral Papov with six vessels in the
harbour of San Francisco was appealed to by excited citizens on rumours
of the approach of the _Alabama_ and gave orders to protect the city. He
acted without instructions and was later reproved for the order by his
superiors at home.]
[Footnote 992: _The Liberator_, March 6, 1863.]
[Footnote 993: American opinion knew little of this change. An
interesting, if somewhat irrational and irregular plan to thwart
Southern ship-building operations, had been taken up by the United
States Navy Department. This was to buy the Rams outright by the offer
of such a price as, it was thought, would be so tempting to the Lairds
as to make refusal unlikely. Two men, Forbes and Aspinwall, were sent to
England with funds and much embarrassed Adams to whom they discreetly
refrained from stating details, but yet permitted him to guess their
object. The plan of buying ran wholly counter to Adams' diplomatic
protests on England's duty in international law and the agents
themselves soon saw the folly of it. Fox, Assistant Secretary of the
Navy, wrote to Dupont, March 26, 1863: "The Confederate ironclads in
England, I think, will be taken care of." (Correspondence, I, 196.)
Thurlow Weed wrote to Bigelow, April 16, of the purpose of the visit of
Forbes and Aspinwall. (Bigelow, _Retrospections_, I, 632.) Forbes
reported as early as April 18 virtually against going on with the plan.
"We must keep cool here, and prepare the way; we have put new fire into
Mr. Dudley by furnishing _fuel_, and he is hard at it getting
evidence.... My opinion _to-day_ is that we can and shall stop by legal
process and by the British Government the sailing of ironclads and other
war-ships." (Forbes MS. To Fox.) That this was wholly a Navy Department
plan and was disliked by State Department representatives is shown by
Dudley's complaints (Forbes MS.). The whole incident has been adequately
discussed by C.F. Adams, though without reference to the preceding
citations, in his _Studies Military and Diplomatic_, Ch. IX. "An
Historical Residuum," in effect a refutation of an article by Chittenden
written in 1890, in which bad memory and misunderstanding played sad
havoc with historical truth.]
[Footnote 994: _U.S. Diplomatic Correspondence_, 1863, Pt. I, p. 157. To
Seward, March 24, 1863.]
[Footnote 995: _Ibid._, p. 160. To Seward, March 27, 1863.]
[Footnote 996: State Department, Eng., Vol. 82, No. 356. Adams to
Seward, March 27, 1863.]
[Footnote 997: Palmerston MS. Russell to Palmerston, March 27, 1863.]
[Footnote 998: Rhodes, IV, p. 369, _notes_, April 4, 1863. Bright was
made very anxious as to Government intentions by this debate.]
[Footnote 999: This topic will be treated at length in Chapter XVIII. It
is here cited merely in relation to its effect on the Government at
the moment.]
[Footnote 1000: Trevelyan, _John Bright_, 307-8.]
[Footnote 1001: Hansard, 3rd Series, CLXX, 33-71, for entire debate.]
[Footnote 1002: _U.S. Diplomatic Correspondence_, 1863, Pt. I, p. 164.
Adams to Seward, March 28, 1863.]
[Footnote 1003: Rhodes, IV, 369-72.]
[Footnote 1004: Palmerston MS.]
[Footnote 1005: Bernard, p. 353. The case was heard in June, and the
seizure held unwarranted. Appealed by the Government this decision was
upheld by the Court of Exchequer in November. It was again appealed, and
the Government defeated in the House of Lords in April, 1864.]
[Footnote 1006: _Manchester Examiner and Times_, April 7, 1863. Goldwin
Smith was one of the principal speakers. Letters were read from Bright,
Forster, R.A. Taylor, and others.]
[Footnote 1007: F.O., Am., Vol. 869, No. 183.]
[Footnote 1008: "Historicus," in articles in the _Times_, was at this
very moment, from December, 1862, on, discussing international law
problems, and in one such article specifically defended the belligerent
right to conduct a cruising squadron blockade. See _Historicus on
International Law_, pp. 99-118. He stated the established principle to
be that search and seizure could be used "not only" for "vessels
actually intercepted in the attempt to enter the blockaded port, but
those also which shall be elsewhere met with and shall be found to have
been destined to such port, with knowledge of the fact and notice of the
blockade." (_Ibid._, p. 108.)]
[Footnote 1009: F.O., Am., Vol. 869, No. 158. Russell to Lyons, March
28, 1863.]
[Footnote 1010: F.O., Am., Vol. 881, No. 309. To Russell.]
[Footnote 1011: _Ibid._, No. 310. To Russell, April 13, 1863.]
[Footnote 1012: Russell Papers. To Russell, April 13, 1863.]
[Footnote 1013: F.O., Am., Vol. 882, No. 324. Copy enclosed in Lyons to
Russell, April 17, 1863.]
[Footnote 1014: Russell Papers. To Russell.]
[Footnote 1015: F.O., Am., Vol. 882, No. 341. Lyons to Russell, April
24, 1863.]
[Footnote 1016: Lyons Papers, April 27, 1863. Lyons wrote: "The stories
in the newspapers about an ultimatum having been sent to England are
untrue. But it is true that it had been determined (or very nearly
determined) to issue letters of marque, if the answers to the despatches
sent were not satisfactory. It is very easy to see that if U.S.
privateers were allowed to capture British merchant vessels on charges
of breach of blockade or carrying contraband of war, the vexations would
have soon become intolerable to our commerce, and a quarrel must
have ensued."]
[Footnote 1017: _Parliamentary Papers_, 1863, _Commons_, LXXII.
"Memorial from Shipowners of Liverpool on Foreign Enlistment Act."]
[Footnote 1018: _Ibid._]
[Footnote 1019: _U.S. Diplomatic Correspondence_, 1863, Pt. I, pp.
308-10.]
[Footnote 1020: The despatch taken in its entirety save for a few
vigorous sentences quite typical of Seward's phrase-making, is not at
all warlike. Bancroft, II, 385 _seq_., makes Seward increasingly anxious
from March to September, and concludes with a truly warlike despatch to
Adams, September 5. This last was the result of Adams' misgivings
reported in mid-August, and it is not until these were received (in my
interpretation) that Seward really began to fear the "pledge" made in
April would not be carried out. Adams himself, in 1864, read to Russell
a communication from Seward denying that his July 11 despatch was
intended as a threat or as in any sense unfriendly to Great Britain.
(F.O., Am., Vol. 939, No. 159. Russell to Lyons, April 3, 1864.)]
[Footnote 1021: _Parliamentary Papers_, 1864, _Commons_, LXII.
"Correspondence respecting iron-clad vessels building at Birkenhead."]
[Footnote 1022: See next chapter.]
[Footnote 1023: State Department, Eng., Vol. 83, No. 452, and No. 453
with enclosure. Adams to Seward, July 16, 1863.]
[Footnote 1024: Rhodes, IV, 381.]
[Footnote 1025: Many of these details were unknown at the time so that
on the face of the documents then available, and for long afterwards,
there appeared ground for believing that Adams' final protests of
September 3 and 5 had forced Russell to yield. Dudley, as late as 1893,
thought that "at the crisis" in September, Palmerston, in the absence of
Russell, had given the orders to stop the rams. (In _Penn. Magazine of
History_, Vol. 17, pp. 34-54. "Diplomatic Relations with England during
the Late War.")]
[Footnote 1026: Rhodes, IV, p. 382.]
[Footnote 1027: The _Times_, Sept. 7, 1863.]
[Footnote 1028: _Ibid._, Editorial, Sept. 16, 1863. The Governmental
correspondence with Lairds was demanded by a motion in Parliament, Feb.
23, 1864, but the Government was supported in refusing it. A printed
copy of this correspondence, issued privately, was placed in Adams'
hands by persons unnamed and sent to Seward on March 29, 1864. Seward
thereupon had this printed in the _Diplomatic Correspondence_, 1864-5,
Pt. I, No. 633.]
[Footnote 1029: State Department, Eng., Vol. 84, No. 492. Adams to
Seward, Sept. 8, 1863.]
[Footnote 1030: _U.S. Diplomatic Correspondence_, 1863, Pt. I, p. 370.
To Seward, Sept. 10, 1863. Adams, looking at the whole matter of the
Rams and the alleged "threat of war" of Sept. 5, from the point of view
of his own anxiety at the time, was naturally inclined to magnify the
effects of his own efforts and to regard the _crisis_ as occurring in
September. His notes to Russell and his diary records were early the
main basis of historical treatment. Rhodes, IV, 381-84, has disproved
the accusation of Russell's yielding to a threat. Brooks Adams (Mass.
Hist. Soc. _Proceedings_, Vol. XLV, p. 293, _seq._) ignores Rhodes,
harks back to the old argument and amplifies it with much new and
interesting citation, but not to conviction. My interpretation is that
the real crisis of Governmental decision to act came in April, and that
events in September were but final applications of that decision.]
[Footnote 1031: Russell Papers. Monck to Stuart, Sept. 26, 1863. Copy in
Stuart to Russell, Oct. 6, 1863.]
[Footnote 1032: _Ibid._, Lyons to Russell, Oct. 16, 1863.]
[Footnote 1033: Hammond wrote to Lyons, Oct. 17: "You will learn by the
papers that we have at last seized the Iron Clads. Whether we shall be
able to bring home to them legally that they were Confederate property
is another matter. I think we can, but at all events no moral doubt can
be entertained of the fact, and, therefore, we are under no anxiety
whether as to the public or Parliamentary view of our proceeding. They
would have played the devil with the American ships, for they are most
formidable ships. I suppose the Yankees will sleep more comfortably in
consequence." (Lyons Papers.) The Foreign Office thought that it had
thwarted plans to seize violently the vessels and get them to sea.
(F.O., Am., Vol. 930. Inglefield to Grey, Oct. 25, and Romaine to
Hammond, Oct. 26, 1863.).]
[Footnote 1034: F.O., Am., Vol. 929. Marked "September, 1863." The draft
summarized the activities of Confederate ship-building and threatened
Southern agents in England with "the penalities of the law...."]
[Footnote 1035: F.O., Am., Vol. 932, No. 1. F.O. to Consul-General
Crawford, Dec. 16, 1863. The South, on October 7, 1863, had already
"expelled" the British consuls. Crawford was to protest against this
also. (_Ibid._, No. 4.)]
[Footnote 1036: Bonham. _British Consuls in the South_, p. 254.
(Columbia Univ. Studies, Vol. 43.)]
[Footnote 1037: Lyons Papers. Russell to Lyons, Dec. 5, 1863. Bullock,
_Secret Service_, declares the British Government to have been neutral
but with strong leaning toward the North.]
[Footnote 1038: Hansard, 3rd Ser., CLXXIII, pp. 430-41, 544-50,
955-1021. The Tory point of view is argued at length by Brooks Adams,
_The Seizure of the Laird Rams_, pp. 312-324.]
[Footnote 1039: Hansard, 3rd. Ser., CLXXIV, pp. 1862-1913. _The Index_,
naturally vicious in comment on the question of the Rams, summed up its
approval of Derby's contentions: "Europe and America alike will
inevitably believe that it was the threat of Mr. Adams, and nothing
else, which induced the Foreign Secretary to retract his letter of the
1st September, and they will draw the necessary conclusion that the way
to extort concessions from England is by bluster and menace." (Feb. 18,
1864, p. 106.)]
[Footnote 1040: Lairds brought suit for damages, but the case never
reached a decision, for the vessels were purchased by the Government.
This has been regarded as acknowledgment by the Government that it had
no case. In my view the failure to push the case to a conclusion was due
to the desire not to commit Great Britain on legal questions, in view of
the claim for damages certain to be set up by the United States on
account of the depredations of the _Alabama_.]
CHAPTER XIV
ROEBUCK'S MOTION
In the mid-period during which the British Government was seeking to
fulfil its promise of an altered policy as regards ship-building and
while the public was unaware that such a promise had been given, certain
extreme friends of the South thought the time had come for renewed
pressure upon the Government, looking toward recognition of the
Confederacy. The _Alexandra_ had been seized in April, but the first
trial, though appealed, had gone against the Government in June, and
there was no knowledge that the Ministry was determined in its stand.
From January to the end of March, 1863, the public demonstrations in
approval of the emancipation proclamation had somewhat checked
expressions of Southern sympathy, but by the month of June old friends
had recovered their courage and a new champion of the South came forward
in the person of Roebuck.
Meanwhile the activities of Southern agents and Southern friends had not
ceased even if they had, for a time, adopted a less vigorous tone. For
four months after the British refusal of Napoleon's overtures on
mediation, in November, 1862, the friends of the South were against
"acting now," but this did not imply that they thought the cause lost or
in any sense hopeless. Publicists either neutral in attitude or even
professedly sympathetic with the North could see no outcome of the Civil
War save separation of North and South. Thus the historian Freeman in
the preface to the first volume of his uncompleted _History of Federal
Government_, published in 1863, carefully explained that his book did
not have its origin in the struggle in America, and argued that the
breaking up of the Union in no way proved any inherent weakness in a
federal system, but took it for granted that American reunion was
impossible. The novelist, Anthony Trollope, after a long tour of the
North, beginning in September, 1861, published late in 1862 a two-volume
work, _North America_, descriptive of a nation engaged in the business
of war and wholly sympathetic with the Northern cause. Yet he, also,
could see no hope of forcing the South back into the Union. "The North
and South are virtually separated, and the day will come in which the
West also will secede[1041]."
Such interpretations of conditions in America were not unusual; they
were, rather, generally accepted. The Cabinet decision in November,
1862, was not regarded as final, though events were to prove it to be so
for never again was there so near an approach to British intervention.
Mason's friend, Spence, early began to think that true Southern policy
was now to make an appeal to the Tories against the Government. In
January, 1863, he was planning a new move:
"I have written to urge Mr. Gregory to be here in time for a
thorough organization so as to push the matter this time to a
vote. I think the Conservatives may be got to move as a body
and if so the result of a vote seems to me very certain. I
have seen Mr. Horsfall and Mr. Laird here and will put myself
in communication with Mr. Disraeli as the time approaches for
action for this seems to me now our best card[1042]."
That some such effort was being thought of is evidenced by the attitude
of the _Index_ which all through the months from November, 1862, to the
middle of January, 1863, had continued to harp on the subject of
mediation as if still believing that something yet might be done by the
existing Ministry, but which then apparently gave up hope of the
Palmerstonian administration:
"But what the Government means is evident enough. It does not
mean to intervene or to interfere. It will not mediate, if it
can help it; it will not recognize the Confederate States,
unless there should occur some of those 'circumstances over
which they have no control,' which leave weak men and weak
ministers no choice. They will not, if they are not forced to
it, quarrel with Mr. Seward, or with Mr. Bright. They will
let Lancashire starve; they will let British merchantmen be
plundered off Nassau and burnt off Cuba; they will submit to
a blockade of Bermuda or of Liverpool; but they will do
nothing which may tend to bring a supply of cotton from the
South, or to cut off the supply of eggs and bacon from the
North[1043]."
But this plan of 'turning to the Tories' received scant encouragement
and was of no immediate promise, as soon appeared by the debate in
Parliament on reassembling, February 5, 1863. Derby gave explicit
approval of the Government's refusal to listen to Napoleon[1044]. By
February, Russell, having recovered from the smart of defeat within the
Cabinet, declared himself weary of the perpetual talk about mediation
and wrote to Lyons, "... till both parties are heartily tired and sick
of the business, I see no use in talking of good offices. When that time
comes Mercier will probably have a hint; let him have all the honour and
glory of being the first[1045]." For the time being Spence's idea was
laid aside, Gregory writing in response to an inquiry from Mason:
"The House of Commons is opposed to taking any step at
present, feeling rightly or wrongly that to do so would be
useless to the South, and possibly embroil us with the North.
Any motion on the subject will be received with disfavour,
consequently the way in which it will be treated will only
make the North more elated, and will irritate the South
against us. If I saw the slightest chance of a motion being
received with any favour I would not let it go into other
hands, but I find the most influential men of all Parties
opposed to it[1046]."
Of like opinion was Slidell who, writing of the situation in France,
reported that he had been informed by his "friend at the Foreign Office"
that "It is believed that every possible thing has been done here in
your behalf--we must now await the action of England, and it is through
that you must aim all your efforts in that direction[1047]."
With the failure, at least temporary, of Southern efforts to move the
British Government or to stir Parliament, energies were now directed
toward using financial methods of winning support for the Southern
cause. The "Confederate Cotton Loan" was undertaken with the double
object of providing funds for Southern agents in Europe and of creating
an interested support of the South, which might, it was hoped,
ultimately influence the British Government.
By 1863 it had become exceedingly difficult, owing to the blockade, for
the Government at Richmond to transmit funds to its agents abroad.
Bullock, especially, required large amounts in furtherance of his
ship-building contracts and was embarrassed by the lack of business
methods and the delays of the Government at home. The incompetence of
the Confederacy in finance was a weakness that characterized all of its
many operations whether at home or abroad[1048] and was made evident in
England by the confusion in its efforts to establish credits there. At
first the Confederate Government supplied its agents abroad with drafts
upon the house of Fraser, Trenholm & Company, of Liverpool, a branch of
the firm long established at Charleston, South Carolina, purchasing its
bills of exchange with its own "home made" money. But as Confederate
currency rapidly depreciated this method of transmitting funds became
increasingly difficult and costly. The next step was to send to Spence,
nominated by Mason as financial adviser in England, Confederate money
bonds for sale on the British market, with authority to dispose of them
as low as fifty cents on the dollar, but these found no takers[1049]. By
September, 1862, Bullock's funds for ship-building were exhausted and
some new method of supply was required. Temporary relief was found in
adopting a suggestion from Lindsay whereby cotton was made the basis for
an advance of £60,000, a form of cotton bond being devised which fixed
the price of cotton at eightpence the pound. These bonds were not put on
the market but were privately placed by Lindsay & Company with a few
buyers for the entire sum, the transaction remaining secret[1050].
In the meantime this same recourse to cotton had occurred to the
authorities at Richmond and a plan formulated by which cotton should be
purchased by the Government, stored, and certificates issued to be sold
abroad, the purchaser being assured of "all facilities of shipment."
Spence was to be the authorized agent for the sale of these "cotton
certificates," but before any reached him various special agents of the
Confederacy had arrived in England by December, 1862, with such
certificates in their possession and had disposed of some of them,
calling them "cotton warrants." The difficulties which might arise from
separate action in the market were at once perceived and following a
conference with Mason all cotton obligations were turned to Fraser,
Trenholm & Company. Spence now had in his hands the "money bonds" but no
further attempt was made to dispose of these since the "cotton warrants"
were considered a better means of raising funds.
It is no doubt true that since all of these efforts involved a
governmental guarantee the various "certificates" or "warrants" partook
of the nature of a government bond. Yet up to this point the Richmond
authorities, after the first failure to sell "money bonds" abroad were
not keen to attempt anything that could be stamped as a foreign
"government loan." Their idea was rather that a certain part of the
produce of the South was being set aside as the property of those who in
England should extend credit to the South. The sole purpose of these
earlier operations was to provide funds for Southern agents. By July,
1862, Bullock had exhausted his earlier credit of a million dollars. The
£60,000 loan secured through Lindsay then tided over an emergency demand
and this had been followed by a development on similar lines of the
"cotton certificates" and "warrants" which by December, 1862, had
secured, through Spence's agency, an additional million dollars or
thereabouts. Mason was strongly recommending further expansion of this
method and had the utmost confidence in Spence. Now, however, there was
broached to the authorities in Richmond a proposal for the definite
floating in Europe of a specified "cotton loan."
This proposal came through Slidell at Paris and was made by the
well-established firm of Erlanger & Company. First approached by this
company in September, 1862, Slidell consulted Mason but found the latter
strongly committed to his own plans with Spence[1051]. But Slidell
persisted and Mason gave way[1052]. Representatives of Erlanger
proceeded to Richmond and proposed a loan of twenty-five million
dollars; they were surprised to find the Confederate Government
disinclined to the idea of a foreign loan, and the final agreement, cut
to fifteen millions, was largely made because of the argument advanced
that as a result powerful influences would thus be brought to the
support of the South[1053]. The contract was signed at Richmond, January
28, 1863, and legalized by a secret act of Congress on the day
following[1054]. But there was no Southern enthusiasm for the project.
Benjamin wrote to Mason that the Confederacy disclaimed the "desire or
intention on our part to effect a loan in Europe ... during the war we
want only such very moderate sums as are required abroad for the
purchase of warlike supplies and for vessels, and even that is not
required because of our want of funds, but because of the difficulties
of remittance"; as for the Erlanger contract the Confederacy "would have
declined it altogether but for the political considerations indicated by
Mr. Slidell[1055]...."
From Mason's view-point the prime need was to secure money; from
Slidell's (at least so asserted) it was to place a loan with the purpose
of establishing strong friends. It had been agreed to suspend the
operations of Spence until the result of Erlanger's offer was learned,
but pressure brought by Caleb Huse, purchasing agent of the Confederacy,
caused a further sale of "cotton warrants[1056]." Spence, fearing he was
about to be shelved, became vexed and made protest to Mason, while
Slidell regarded Spence[1057] as a weak and meddlesome agent[1058]. But
on February 14, 1863, Erlanger's agents returned to Paris and
uncertainty was at an end. Spence went to Paris, saw Erlanger, and
agreed to co-operate in floating the loan[1059]. Then followed a
remarkable bond market operation, interesting, not so much as regards
the financial returns to the South, for these were negligible, as in
relation to the declared object of Slidell and the Richmond
Government--namely, the "strong influences" that would accompany the
successful flotation of a loan.
Delay in beginning operations was caused by the failure to receive
promptly the authenticated copy of the Act of Congress authorizing the
loan, which did not arrive until March 18. By this contract Erlanger &
Company, sole managers of the loan, had guaranteed flotation of the
entire $15,000,000 at not less than 77, the profit of the Company to be
five per cent., plus the difference between 77 and the actual price
received, but the first $300,000 taken was to be placed at once at the
disposal of the Government. The bonds were put on the market March 19,
in London, Liverpool, Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt, but practically
all operations were confined to England. The bid for the loan was
entitled "_Seven per Cent. Cotton Loan of the Confederate States of
America for_ 3 _Millions Sterling at_ 90 _per Cent_." The bonds were to
bear interest at seven per cent. and were to be exchangeable for cotton
at the option of the holder at the price of sixpence "for each pound of
cotton, at any time not later than six months after the ratification of
a treaty of peace between the present belligerents." There were
provisions for the gradual redemption of the bonds in gold for those who
did not desire cotton. Subscribers were to pay 5 per cent. on
application. 10 per cent. on allotment, 10 per cent. on each of the
days, the first of May, June and July, 1863, and 15 per cent. on the
first of August, September and October.
Since the price of cotton in England was then 21 pence per pound it was
thought here was a sufficiently wide margin to offer at least a good
chance of enormous profits to the buyer of the bonds. True "the loan was
looked upon as a wild cotton speculation[1060]," but odds were so large
as to induce a heavy gamblers' plunge, for it seemed hardly conceivable
that cotton could for some years go below sevenpence per pound, and even
that figure would have meant profit, _if_ the Confederacy were
established. Moreover, even though the loan was not given official
recognition by the London stock exchange, the financial columns of the
_Times_ and the _Economist_ favoured it and the subscriptions were so
prompt and so heavy that in two days the loan was reported as
over-subscribed three times in London alone[1061]. With the closing of
the subscription the bonds went up to 95-1/2. Slidell wrote: "It is a
financial recognition of our independence, emanating from a class
proverbially cautious, and little given to be influenced by sentiment or
sympathy[1062]." On Friday, March 27, the allotment took place and three
days later Mason wrote, "I think I may congratulate you, therefore, on
the triumphant success of our infant credit--it shows, _malgré_ all
detraction and calumny, that cotton is king at last[1063]."
"Alas for the King! Two days later his throne began to tremble and it
took all the King's horses and all the King's men to keep him in
state[1064]." On April 1, the flurry of speculation had begun to falter
and the loan was below par; on the second it dropped to 3-1/2 discount,
and by the third the promoters and the Southern diplomats were very
anxious. They agreed that someone must be "bearing" the bonds and
suspected Adams of supplying Northern funds for that purpose[1065].
Spence wrote from Liverpool in great alarm and coincidently Erlanger &
Company urged that Mason should authorize the use of the receipts
already secured to hold up the price of the bonds. Mason was very
reluctant to do this[1066], but finally yielded when informed of the
result of an interview between Spence, Erlanger, and the latter's chief
London agent, Schroeder. Spence had proposed a withdrawal of a part of
the loan from the market as likely to have a stabilizing effect, and
opposed the Erlanger plan of using the funds already in hand. But
Schroeder coolly informed him that if the Confederate representative
refused to authorize the use of these funds to sustain the market,
then Erlanger would regard his Company as having "completed their
contract ... which was simply to issue the Loan." "Having issued it,
they did not and do not guarantee that the public would pay up their
instalments. If the public abandon the loan, the 15 per cent sacrificed
is, in point of fact, not the property of the Government at all, but the
profits of Messrs. Erlanger & Co., actually in their hands, and they
cannot be expected to take a worse position. At any rate they will not
do so, and unless the compact can be made on the basis we name, matters
must take their course[1067]."
In the face of this ultimatum, Spence advised yielding as he "could not
hesitate ... seeing that nothing could be so disastrous politically, as
well as financially, as the public break-down of the Loan[1068]." Mason
gave the required authorization and this was later approved from
Richmond. For a time the "bulling" of the loan was successful, but again
and again required the use of funds received from actual sales of bonds
and in the end the loan netted very little to the Confederacy. Some
$6,000,000 was squandered in supporting the market and from the entire
operation it is estimated that less than $7,000,000 was realized by the
Confederacy, although, as stated by the _Economist_, over $12,000,000 of
the bonds were outstanding and largely in the hands of British investors
at the end of the war[1069].
The loan soon became, not as had been hoped and prophesied by Slidell,
a source of valuable public support, but rather a mere barometer of
Southern fortunes[1070]. From first to last the Confederate Cotton Loan
bore to subscribers the aspect of a speculative venture and lacked the
regard attached to sound investment. This fact in itself denied to the
loan any such favourable influence, or "financial recognition of the
Confederacy," as Mason and Slidell, in the first flush of success,
attributed to it. The rapid fluctuations in price further discredited it
and tended to emphasize the uncertainty of Southern victory. Thus
"confidence in the South" was, if anything, lessened instead of
increased by this turning from political to financial methods of
bringing pressure upon the Government[1071].
Southern political and parliamentary pressure had indeed been reserved
from January to June, 1863. Public attention was distracted from the war
in America by the Polish question, which for a time, particularly during
the months of March and April, 1863, disturbed the good relations
existing between England and France since the Emperor seemed bent on
going beyond British "meddling," even to pursuing a policy that easily
might lead to war with Russia. Europe diverted interest from America,
and Napoleon himself was for the moment more concerned over the Polish
question than with American affairs, even though the Mexican venture was
still a worry to him. It was no time for a British parliamentary "push"
and when a question was raised on the cotton famine in Lancashire
little attention was given it, though ordinarily it would have been
seized upon as an opportunity for a pro-Southern demonstration. This was
a bitter attack by one Ferrand in the Commons, on April 27, directed
against the cotton manufacturers as lukewarm over employees' sufferings.
Potter, a leading cotton manufacturer, replied to the attack. Potter and
his brother were already prominent as strong partisans of the North, yet
no effort was made to use the debate to the advantage of the
South[1072].
In late May both necessity and fortuitous circumstance seemed to make
advisable another Southern effort in Parliament. The cotton loan, though
fairly strong again because of Confederate governmental aid, was in fact
a failure in its expected result of public support for the South;
something must be done to offset that failure. In Polish affairs France
had drawn back; presumably Napoleon was again eager for some active
effort. Best of all, the military situation in America was thought to
indicate Southern success; Grant's western campaign had come to a halt
with the stubborn resistance of the great Mississippi stronghold at
Vicksburg, while in Virginia, Lee, on May 2-3, had overwhelmingly
defeated Hooker at Chancellorsville and was preparing, at last, a
definite offensive campaign into Northern territory. Lee's advance north
did not begin until June 10, but his plan was early known in a select
circle in England and much was expected of it. The time seemed ripe,
therefore, and the result was notification by Roebuck of a motion for
the recognition of the Confederacy--first step the real purpose of which
was to attempt that 'turning to the Tories' which had been advocated by
Spence in January, but postponed on the advice of Gregory[1073]. _The
Index_ clearly indicated where lay the wind: "No one," it declared "now
asks what will be the policy of Great Britain towards America; but
everybody anxiously waits on what the Emperor of the French will do."
"... England to-day pays one of the inevitable penalties of
free government and of material prosperity, that of having at
times at the head of national affairs statesmen who belong
rather to the past than to the present, and whose skill and
merit are rather the business tact and knowledge of details,
acquired by long experience, than the quick and prescient
comprehension of the requirements of sudden emergencies....
"The nominal conduct of Foreign Affairs is in the hands of a
diplomatic Malaprop, who has never shown vigour, activity, or
determination, except where the display of these qualities
was singularly unneeded, or even worse than useless.... From
Great Britain, then, under her actual Government, the Cabinet
at Washington has nothing to fear, and the Confederate States
nothing to expect[1074]."
Of main interest to the public was the military situation. The _Times_
minimized the western campaigns, regarding them as required for
political effect to hold the north-western states loyal to the Union,
and while indulging in no prophecies as to the fate of Vicksburg,
expressing the opinion that, if forced to surrender it, the South could
easily establish "a new Vicksburg" at some other point[1075]. Naturally
_The Index_ was pleased with and supported this view[1076]. Such
ignorance of the geographic importance of Vicksburg may seem like wilful
misleading of the public; but professed British military experts were
equally ignorant. Captain Chesney, Professor of Military History at
Sandhurst College, published in 1863, an analysis of American campaigns,
centering all attention on the battles in Maryland and Virginia and
reaching the conclusion that the South could resist, indefinitely, any
Northern attack[1077]. He dismissed the western campaigns as of no real
significance. W.H. Russell, now editor of the _Army and Navy Gazette_,
better understood Grant's objectives on the Mississippi but believed
Northern reconquest of the South to the point of restoration of the
Union to be impossible. If, however, newspaper comments on the success
of Southern armies were to be regarded as favourable to Roebuck's motion
for recognition, W.H. Russell was against it.
"If we could perceive the smallest prospect of awaking the
North to the truth, or of saving the South from the loss and
trials of the contest by recognition, we would vote for it
to-morrow. But next to the delusion of the North that it can
breathe the breath of life into the corpse of the murdered
Union again, is the delusion of some people in England who
imagine that by recognition we would give life to the South,
divide the nations on each side of the black and white line
for ever, and bring this war to the end. There is probably
not one of these clamourers for recognition who could define
the limits of the State to be recognized.... And, over and
above all, recognition, unless it meant 'war,' would be an
aggravation of the horrors of the contest; it would not aid
the South one whit, and it would add immensely to the unity
and the fury of the North[1078]."
The British Foreign Secretary was at first little concerned at Roebuck's
motion, writing to Lyons, "You will see that Roebuck has given notice of
a motion to recognize the South. But I think it certain that neither
Lord Derby nor Cobden will support it, and I should think no great
number of the Liberal party. Offshoots from all parties will compose the
minority[1079]." Russell was correct in this view but not so did it
appear to Southern agents who now became active at the request of
Roebuck and Lindsay in securing from the Emperor renewed expressions of
willingness to act, and promptly, if England would but give the word.
There was no real hope that Russell would change his policy, but there
seemed at least a chance of replacing the Whig Ministry with a Tory one.
The date for the discussion of the motion had been set for June 30. On
June 13, Lindsay, writing to Slidell, enclosed a letter from Roebuck
asking for an interview with Napoleon[1080], and on June 16, Mason wrote
that if Slidell saw the Emperor it was of the greatest importance that
he, Mason, should be at once informed of the results and how far he
might communicate them to "our friends in the House[1081]." Slidell saw
the Emperor on June 18, talked of the possibility of "forcing the
English Cabinet to act or to give way to a new ministry," asked that an
interview be given Lindsay and Roebuck, and hinted that Lord Malmesbury,
a warm friend of the Emperor, would probably be the Foreign Secretary in
a Tory cabinet. Napoleon made no comment indicating any purpose to aid
in upsetting the Palmerston Government; but consented to the requested
interview and declared he would go to the length of officially informing
the British Ministry that France was very ready to discuss the
advisability of recognizing the South[1082].
This was good news. June 22, Slidell received a note from Mocquard
stating that Baron Gros, the French Ambassador at London, had been
instructed to sound Russell. Meanwhile, Roebuck and Lindsay had hurried
to Paris, June 20, saw Napoleon and on the twenty-fifth, Slidell
reported that they were authorized to state in the House of Commons that
France was "not only willing but anxious to recognize the Confederate
States with the co-operation of England[1083]." Slidell added, however,
that Napoleon had not promised Roebuck and Lindsay to make a formal
proposal to Great Britain. This rested on the assurances received by
Slidell from Mocquard, and when Mason, who had let the assurance be
known to his friends, wrote that Russell, replying to Clanricarde, on
June 26, had denied any official communication from France, and asked
for authority from Slidell to back up his statements by being permitted
to give Roebuck a copy of the supposed instruction[1084], he received a
reply indicating confusion somewhere:
"I called yesterday on my friend at the Affaires Etrangeres
on the subject of your note of Saturday: he has just left me.
M.D. de Lh. will not give a copy of his instructions to Baron
Gros--but this is the substance of it. On the 19th he
directed Baron Gros to take occasion to say to leading
Members of Parliament that the Emperor's opinions on the
subject of American affairs were unchanged. That he was
disposed with the co-operation of England immediately to
recognize the Confederate States; this was in the form of a
draft letter, not a despatch. On the 22nd, he officially
instructed the Baron to sound _Palmerston_ on the subject and
to inform him of the Emperor's views and wishes. This was
done in consequence of a note from the Emperor, to the
Minister, in which he said, 'Je me demande, s'il ne serait
bien d'avertir Lord Palmerston, que je suis décidé à
reconnaître le Sud.' This is by far the most significant
thing that the Emperor has said, either to me or to the
others. It renders me comparatively indifferent what England
may do or omit doing. At all events, let Mr. Roebuck press
his motion and make his statement of the Emperor's
declaration. Lord Palmerston will not dare to dispute it and
the responsibility of the continuance of the war will rest
entirely upon him. M. Drouyn de Lhuys has not heard from
Baron Gros the result of his interview with Palmerston. I
see that the latter has been unwell and it is probable that
the former had not been able to see him. There can be no
impropriety in Mr. Roebuck's seeing Baron Gros, who will
doubtless give him information which he will use to
advantage. I write in great haste; will you do me the favour
to let Lord Campbell know the substance of this note,
omitting that portion of it which relates to the Emperor's
inclination to act alone. Pray excuse me to Lord Campbell for
not writing to him, time not permitting me to do so[1085]."
This did not satisfy Mason; he telegraphed on the twenty-ninth, "Can I
put in hands of Roebuck copy of Mocquard's note brought by
Corcoran[1086]." To which Slidell replied by letter:
"For fear the telegraph may commit some blunder I write to
say that M. Mocquard's note, being confidential, cannot be
_used in any way_. I showed it to Messrs. Roebuck and Lindsay
when they were here and have no objection that they should
again see it confidentially[1087]."
On June 29, Roebuck went to Baron Gros and received the information that
no formal communication had been made to Russell. The next day in an
effort in some way to secure an admission of what Mason and his friends
believed to be the truth, Lord Campbell asked Russell in the House of
Lords if he had received either a document or a verbal communication
outlining Napoleon's desires. Russell replied that Baron Gros had told
him "an hour ago" that he had not even received any instruction to
deliver such a communication[1088]. This was in the hours preceding the
debate, now finally to occur in the Commons. Evidently there had been an
error in the understanding of Napoleon by Slidell, Roebuck and Lindsay,
or else there was a question of veracity between Russell, Baron Gros
and Napoleon.