CHAPTER X.

THE PRESENT CRISIS WILL REGENERATE THE INSTITUTIONS

OF THE UNITED STATES.

It remains for me to inquire what influence the present crisis may exert

on the institutions of the United States. It is at the expense of these

institutions that the slave States, inferior in strength, in numbers, in

progress of every kind, would reëstablish their fatal and growing

preponderance. Here again, therefore, my thesis subsists: the victories

of the South had compromised every thing, the resistance of the North is

about to save every thing; the election of Mr. Lincoln is a painful but

salutary crisis, it is the first effort of a great people rising.

The party of slavery had introduced into the heart of American

democracy, a permanent cause of debasement and corruption. In this

respect, also, it was leading the Confederation to its death by the most

direct and speedy way. I wish to show how it developed the worst sides

of the democratic system. I hope to be impartial towards this system;

although persuaded that the government of which England offers us the

model is better suited to guaranty public liberties and to second true

progress in every thing, I am not of those who place the shadow before

the substance, and who condemn democracy without appeal. Are we destined

some day to pass into its hands? Have we already begun to glide down the

descent that leads to it? It is possible. In any case, it would be

unjust to hate America on account of it, as is too often done. America

has had no choice; in virtue of its origin and its history, it could be

nothing else than a democracy. If it has the faults of democracy, the

unamiable rudeness, the violent proceedings, the levelling passions, I

am scarcely surprised at it. I ask myself rather if it has known how to

find a basis of support against the temptations of such a system, if it

has prevented the subjugation of individuals by the mass, the absorption

of consciences by the State, the substitution of the sovereignty of the

end for that of the people. These are the shoals of democracy; have they

been shunned by the United States? Have they been able to avoid

transforming it either into tyranny or socialism? We shall see that, if

it has not succumbed to the temptation, this has not been the fault of

the party of slavery. Thanks to it, the corruption of democratic

institutions was rapidly advancing; a single adversary, constantly the

same, has combated the progress of this work of destruction. We shall

encounter again, upon the ground of political institutions, the

fundamental antagonism of the Gospel and slavery.

I say first, that it is rarely that names are altogether fortuitous, and

do not correspond to things. It has often given rise to astonishment

that the party of slavery should have taken the name of the democratic

party; notwithstanding, nothing was more natural. How could slavery have

been defended if not by exaggerating democracy? It was necessary, in

such a cause, to deny the notions of right, of truth, and of justice; it

was necessary that the greater number should become right, truth, and

justice.

Something more even was needed. The _sovereignty of the end_ must yield,

if necessary, before the sovereignty of numbers. A cause like that of

slavery is only defended in the heart of a democratic nation, by

teaching it contempt of scruples, and the stifling of the conscience.

Every thing is allowable, every thing is good, provided that we succeed

in our ends! This is the rule which it designs shall prevail in

political contests. A single question, seeing nothing but itself,

determined to spare nothing, offering itself to parties, whoever they

may be, who seek a change, creating factitious majorities to effect the

ends of base ambition, taking account neither of honor nor country, and

attaining its end through every thing--this is enough to vitiate

profoundly institutions and morals. The sovereignty of the idea, when it

has laid hands on the sovereignty of the people, is in a position to go

to great lengths, and to sink very low. Moral maxims and written laws

are trodden under foot, a struggle without pity or remorse begins, a

struggle of life and death. Social passions easily acquire a degree of

perversity which political passions do not possess; the former are

without conscience and without compassion; they will be satisfied, cost

what it may; triumph is in their eyes an absolute, an inexorable

necessity. Rather than not conquer, they will rend the country.

What the regular working of institutions becomes under such a pressure,

every one can divine. For some years past, in proportion as the

pretensions of the slavery party had increased, we had seen public

morals become tainted in the United States. Indifference to means had

made alarming progress, and had been felt even in the habits of

commerce, and the relations of private life. The spirit of enterprise

had come to be exalted even in its most dishonorable acts; respect for

bankrupts seemed almost to be propagated. It is a fact, that men like

Mr. Jefferson Davis, the present President of the revolted South, were

not afraid to recommend the repudiation of debts. In the school of

slavery, a disembarrassed and unscrupulous manner of acting had given

its stamp to the general manner of the nation. Affairs were going on

rapidly, the liberties of America were on the high road to ruin; it was

time that the reaction of liberal and honorable sentiments should make

itself felt. The election of 1860 marked the stopping-place.

I wonder that they could have stopped; such a fact demands an

explanation, for ordinarily the declivities of democratic decline are

never remounted. The natural tendency there being to deny the right of

the minority, (the most precious of all,) to sink the man entire in the

ballot, to lay violent hands on the private portion of his life, and to

force even his conscience into the social contract, it follows that

governments arise in which the question of limitation becomes effaced by

the question of origin. In the face of such a power, nothing is left

standing; no more rights, no more principles, no more of those solid and

resisting blocks which serve to stem the popular current; the province

of the State becomes indefinite.

And how much more irresistible and more perverse is this tendency, when

a profound cause of corruption, such as slavery, adds its action to the

strength of such democracies! It is no longer, in such cases, the

sovereign majority alone before which the right may be forced to bow, it

is a party determined to attain its ends, which penetrates with violence

into that domain of conscience where human laws should not enter; a

party which sets about regulating sometimes the belief, sometimes the

thought, sometimes the speech. Such has been the influence exercised in

the United States by the institution of slavery; it has forbidden

authors to write, clergymen to preach, and almost individuals to think

any thing that displeased it; it has invented the right of secession, in

order to have at its disposal a formidable means of intimidation, and to

place a threat behind each of its demands. To yield, to descend, to

descend still further, to obey a continued impulse of democratic

debasement, such is the course to which it has impelled the whole

Confederation.

Notwithstanding, the United States have resisted. I shall tell why; I

shall show by virtue of what marvellous force Americans have escaped the

absolute levelling which seemed destined to be produced by a complicated

democracy of slavery. But I wish first to finish depicting the natural

effects of such a system.

Suppose for a moment a nation (and such are not wanting) modelled after

the antique. The Pagan principle reigns there supremely, the State

absorbs every thing, souls are banded together and governed; a

centralized power, a visible Providence, is substituted for individual

action; creeds have essentially the hereditary and national form; each

one believes what the rest believe, each one does what the rest do, each

one holds the opinions which are found in the ancient traditions of the

country; truth is no longer a personal conviction, acquired at the price

of earnest struggles, and worth much because it has cost much; it

descends to the rank of customs to which it is fitting to conform, it

has its marked place among social obligations, and forms part of the

duties of the citizen.

Let democracy come to establish its empire in the heart of such a

nation, and you will see with what rapidity every thing will disappear

that bears the slightest resemblance to individual independence. The

more effectual the levelling, the greater will seem the community; and

the smaller the individual, the more, too, in face of the privileges of

the whole, will the very idea of personal rights become effaced. The

majority is held infallible, and the minority appears criminal if it

takes the liberty of refusing to subject its thoughts (yes, its very

thoughts) to that of the majority. In this innumerable host of like

beings, no one is authorized to possess any thing in private; of all

aristocracies, that of the conscience appears then least endurable. Men

believe in the majority, in the mass, in the nation. We have no idea of

the intellectual despotism of a democracy which fails to encounter on

its road the obstacle of personal convictions; it disposes of the human

soul, it creates an unlimited confidence in the judgment of public

opinion, it heads a school of popular courtiers, and teaches each one

the art of setting his watch by the clock of the market-place.

Intelligence, conscience, convictions--all bend, and what does not bend

is broken. This happens, above all, we repeat without wearying, when a

detestable cause like that of slavery perverts the working of democratic

institutions. Then, the tyranny of the majorities has no bounds; the

majorities themselves are formed by means of ignoble contracts and

monstrous alliances. In the midst of lower passions let loose, through

banded parties, imperative mandates, and factitious organizations, which

no longer leave the smallest outlet for the flight of the least

independent wish, the perversities of corrupt and misled democracy have

full scope.

In writing these pages, have I described American democracy? Yes and no.

Yes, for such are really the temptations to which America has been

exposed, such are really the vices with which it might have often been

reproached; no, for a principle of resistance has always revealed itself

in the darkest moments, an irrepressible something has always remained.

In vain the heavy roller has passed and repassed over the ground; it has

always encountered blocks of granite that would not be broken. This is

the point which I had at heart to signal out in closing this study,

knowing that it forms its most essential part, and that whoever has not

given it his attention cannot comprehend the United States. The

extraordinary fact, much more extraordinary than is supposed, that,

under the system of democracy ruled by slavery, men have been able to

pause and retrace their steps, is only explained by the peculiar form

which religious belief has put on in the United States. We have not

before our eyes a Latin nation, a nation clad in the vestments of Greece

or Rome, a nation having, according to the ancient mode, its religion

and its usages universally but indolently admitted. This republic of the

New World is by no means one of those slave republics of ancient times,

in which the citizens took delight in conversing on public affairs, but

in which no one had the bad taste to question his conscience with

respect to the public creeds. The pagan life, with its obligatory

worship, its common education, its suppression of the family and the

individual in behalf of the State, its existence transported to the

Forum; the pagan life, in which the citizen absorbs the individual, and

in which the calm and serene uniformity of indifferent centuries ends,

by giving to each one the national physiognomy, bears no resemblance to

the moral and social life of the United States.

Among them, not the smallest trace is found of that system which seeks

to make nations, and which forgets to make men. They were born, as we

may say, of a protestation of the human conscience. A noble origin,

which explains many things! It is, in fact, the revindication of

religious independence against religious uniformity, and the established

church which created it two hundred years ago. Of course, I have not to

examine here the intrinsic value of the Puritan doctrines. I content

myself with affirming that they landed in America in the name of

liberty, that they were destined to establish liberty there, that they

were destined to build there the true rampart against democratic

tyranny.

From the first day, the State was deprived of the direction of the

intellectual and moral man. Despite that inevitable mixture of

inconsistencies and hesitation which marks our first efforts in all

things, the Puritan colonies, destined one day to become the United

States, set out on the road which led to liberty of belief, of thoughts,

of speech, of the press, of assemblage, of instruction. The most

considerable, most important rights were abstracted at the outset from

the domain of democratic deliberations; insuperable bounds were set to

the sovereignty of numbers; the right of minorities, that of the

individual, the right of remaining alone against all others, the right

of being of one's own opinion, was reserved. Furthermore, they did not

delay to break the bonds between the Church and the State entirely, in

such a manner as to deprive the official superintendence of belief of

its last pretext. Self-government was founded, that is, the most formal

negation of subjugation by the democracy. While the latter tends to the

maximum of government, the American Government tends to the minimum of

government, that form _par excellence_ of liberalism. And it does not

tend thither, as in the Middle Ages, by anarchy, by the absence of

national ties, and moreover by despoiling the individual of his rights

of conscience and thought, confiscated then more entirely for the

benefit of a sovereign church than they have been since for the benefit

of the State; no, American individualism proceeds differently: if it

restrains with salutary vigor the province of governments, it is to

enlarge that of the human soul.

This is a great conquest; the whole future of the modern world is

contained in it. Destined as we are to submit, in a measure at least, to

the action of democracy, the question whether we shall he slaves or free

men is resolved in this: shall we, after the example of America, have

our reserved tribunal, our closed domain in which the public power shall

be permitted to see nothing? Shall there be things among us (the most

important of all) which shall not be put to the vote? Shall our

democracy have its boundaries, and beyond these boundaries shall a vast

country be seen to extend--that of free belief, of free worship, of free

thought, of the free home?

It is because American democracy has boundaries that its worst excesses

have finally found chastisement. It is not installed alone in the United

States; opposite it, another power which knows no fear, is occupied with

resisting it. The entire history of America is explained by this double

fact: the falling and the rising again, the servitudes and the

liberties, the too long triumph of the slavery party, and the recent

victory of Mr. Lincoln, the deadly peril so lately incurred, and the

noble future that opens to-day.

Individualism is not isolation, individual convictions are not sectarian

convictions; they found on the contrary the most powerful of the

unities, moral unity. The thing which most actively dissolves societies

while seeming to unite them, is the uniformity of national dogmas which,

accepted as an inheritance, remain without action over the heart. What

are, in fact, the great bonds on earth, if not duty and affection? Now,

nothing but personal convictions, earnestly acquired by the sweat of our

brow, can destroy selfishness in us. Without this strong cement of

convictions at once individual and common, you will build nothing that

will endure. The United States have in their heart strong convictions,

which are also common convictions; through external diversities, we

have seen that fundamental conformity is real, and all earnest appeal to

Christian truths agitates this country, so divided in appearance, from

one end to the other. National life is here a reality. I do not think

that Socialism, which excuses us from believing ourselves, which places

our soul under responsible administration, and preserves us, it is said,

from the baleful disruptions engendered by individualism, succeeds as

well in destroying selfishness and in diffusing ideas of devotion and

duty. When democracy becomes socialistic, (and it never has been able to

become so in the United States,) it grinds down and reduces souls to

such a degree that nothing is left but a fine dust, a sort of

intellectual and moral powder which, it is true, is an obstacle to

nothing, but which creates nothing either. To build an edifice, stones

are needed, sand will not suffice.

Christian individualism makes the stones, and the democratic party has

just perceived it. In a country where independence of soul has

acclimated independence in all its forms, men may indeed bow the head

sometimes to democracy allied to slavery; but this debasement has a

limit, and the time is coming when they will raise their heads. Strong

beliefs are a strong rampart, the slaves of truth are free men, and

true independence begins in the heart. To have convictions in order to

have characters, to have believers in order to have citizens, to have

energetic minds in order to have powerful nations, to have resistance in

order to have support--such is the programme of individualism. Show me

a country where men are proud enough not to bow before the majority,

where they do not think themselves lost when they depart from, the

beaten track, and jostle of received opinions; and I will admit that

there it will be possible to practise democracy without falling into

servitude.

There is but one country of individual belief, that could attempt the

alliance, hitherto deemed impossible, of democracy and liberty. The

theory in accordance with which the public liberties of England have the

aristocracy for their essential basis, is admitted as an axiom; without

contemning this element of social organization, it is advisable to mine

deeper than this to discover the true foundation of liberty. Individual

belief--this is the foundation. The more we reflect, the more we

discover that the essential thing is not the forms of government, or

even the relations of the different classes, but the moral state of the

community. Are men there? Have souls become masters of themselves? Are

characters formed? Has the force of resistance appeared? Whoever shall

have replied to these questions will have decided, knowingly or

unknowingly, whether liberty be possible.

I do not know that any people should be excluded from liberty; only all

are bound to pursue it by the path that leads to it, by earnestness of

convictions, by internal affranchisement, which signifies by the Gospel.

We may seek in vain, we shall find no means comparable to this (I speak

in the political point of view) when the question is to make citizens.

To place one's self under the absolute authority of God and his word, is

to acquire in the face of mere parties, majorities, general opinions, an

independence that nothing can supply. The independence within is always

translated without; he who is independent of men, in the domain of

beliefs and of thoughts, will be equally so in the domain of public

affairs. Thus democracy itself will not degenerate into socialism. No

one has been able to point out the slightest symptom of socialism in the

United States. Notwithstanding, democracy is fully complete there, and

the election of Mr. Lincoln, once drover, once flatboatman, once

rail-splitter, once clerk--of Mr. Lincoln, the son of his works, who has

succeeded by his own powers in becoming a well-informed man and an

orator, this election proves certainly that American equality is not

menaced by the success of the republican party. It menaces only the evil

democracy, which, under the guidance of the slavery party, sought to

force the nation into the path of socialism. But it will not succeed in

this; the question has just been decided. Between these two systems,

which are to contend for contemporaneous communities, between socialism

and individualism, the choice of the United States is made.

Before witnessing the affranchisement of the slaves, we shall,

therefore, witness the affranchisement of American politics. They have

endured a shameful yoke, and received sad lessons. Since Jefferson, the

born enemy of true liberalism, founded the Democratic party, the United

States had continued to descend the declivity of radicalism; a work of

relentless levelling was thenceforth pursued, and the domain of the

conscience became gradually invaded. The democratic party found its

fulcrum in the South. The slave States forced the enclosure of the

private tribunal, and confiscated in behalf of the State the inviolable

rights of the individual: neither thought, the press, nor the pulpit,

were free among them; the fundamental maxims of Puritan tradition were

sacrificed by them one after the other. They did more: thanks to them,

men were beginning to learn in the free States how to set to work to

pervert their own consciences, and to substitute for it respect for

sovereign majorities. Every day, crying iniquities were covered by the

pretext: "If we were just, we should compromise the national unity, or

we should risk losing the votes secured to our party." Violence, menace,

brutality, and corruption, were boldly introduced into political

struggles. Men became habituated to evil: the most odious crimes, the

Southern laws reducing to legal slavery every free negro who should not

quit the soil of the States, hardly raised a murmur of disapprobation;

the United States seemed on the point of losing that faculty which

nothing can survive--the faculty of indignation.

Behold in what school the democratic party had placed the American

people--that noble people which, despite the grave faults with which it

may be reproached, represents in the main many of the lofty principles

which are allied to the future of modern communities. The reign of the

Democratic party would form the subject of an inglorious history; in it

we should see figure the glorification of servitude, piracy applied to

international right, and, in conclusion, those facts of corruption and

waste which served to crown its last Presidency. The most consistent

champions of the doctrines and practices of the democratic party, are

those men who have just declared that votes are valid only on condition

of giving the majority to slavery, and that a regular election is a

sufficient cause for separation.

CONCLUSION.

I have not sought to recount events, but to attempt a study, which I

believe to be useful to us, and which may, also, not be useless to the

United States. We owe them the support of our sympathy. It is more

important than people imagine to let them hear words of encouragement

from us at this decisive moment. Let us not hasten to declare that the

Union is destroyed, that, henceforth and forever, there will be two

Confederacies existing on the same footing, that the United States of

slavery will have their great _rôle_ to perform here below, like the

United States of liberty. This would be, in any case, immense

exaggeration. Let us not forget that the Union has often before seemed

lost, that the Confederation has often before seemed ready to perish.

Are the men who are terrified at the present perils, ignorant of those

which surrounded the cradle of the United States: mutinous troops,

contending ambitions, threats of separation, anarchy, ruin? This

America, then so weak, is the same that has since become so strong, in

spite of its own faults. At the moment when it rebelled against England,

it had neither arts and manufactures, nor commerce, nor marine; and its

two or three millions of inhabitants were far from agreeing among

themselves. Yet such is the vigor of its genius, such is its

carelessness of every kind of danger, such is the impetuosity with which

it affronts and surmounts obstacles, such is the power of its national

motto; "Go ahead!" that through internal struggles, crises, and

momentary exhaustion, it has attained the stature of a great people.

Count the steamboats on its rivers, estimate the tonnage of its vessels,

compute the amount of its internal trade, measure the length of its

canals and railroads, and you will still have but a faint idea of what

it is capable of undertaking and accomplishing.

We must remember these things, and not imitate those enemies of America

who sometimes feign to put on mourning for her, sometimes jest at her

distress, and find in the present situation of the _disunited States_

(for thus they style them) an agreeable subject for pleasantry,

forgetting that this disunion has a serious cause, which is certainly of

importance enough to make itself understood; forgetting, too, that

generous struggles for humanity and the country are worthy to obtain our

fullest respect. And let us beware how we say that this crisis does not

concern us--that we can do nothing in it. The selfish isolation of

nations is henceforth impossible. The question to be decided here

involves our own affairs, not only because a portion of our fortune is

pledged to the United States, but, above all, because our principles and

our liberties are concerned. The victories of justice, wherever they may

be won, are the victories of the human race.

We can aid this one in some measure. America, which affects sometimes to

declare itself indifferent to our opinions, gathers them up, however,

with jealous care. I have seen respectable Americans blush at

encountering that instinctive blame which, among us, is addressed to the

progress of slavery; they suffered at seeing their country thus fallen

from the esteem which it formerly enjoyed. Proud nations like America

always avenge themselves by noble impulses for the reprobation which

they are conscious of having deserved. The moral intervention of Europe

is not, therefore, superfluous; it is the less so, in that the South

insults us by counting on us. The ringleaders of Charleston and New

Orleans affect to say that England is ready to open her arms to them,

and that France promises a sympathizing reception to her envoys! These

envoys themselves have been selected with care, honorable, having

friends among us,--capable, in a word, of presenting the cause of

slavery in an almost seductive light. It is important, therefore, that

we should not keep silence.

Let governments be reserved; let them avoid every thing that would

resemble direct action in the internal affairs of the United States, let

them have recourse to the commonplaces of speech employed by diplomacy

to escape pledging their policy--this is well. But to imagine that these

commonplaces promise alliance or protection, is to be credulous indeed!

A rebellion under cover of the flag of slavery, be sure, will find it

difficult to make partisans among us French, whatever may be our

indolent indifference in other respects in this matter, an indifference

so great that at the present time the American question _does not exist_

to the most of us. Moreover, we shall shake off this inertia; and, as to

the English, they will not suffer their brightest title to glory in

modern times to be tarnished by any latent complicity with the Gulf

States. The brutal doctrines of interest, so often professed publicly in

Parliament by Mr. Bright, may indeed find organs; and Great Britain

will be counselled to remember cotton and forget justice. The measure

already taken by her at Washington, and which appears to have been

supported by France, a measure designed to declare that the blockade of

the Southern ports must be effectual to be recognized, is perhaps a

concession wrested from her by this detestable school of selfishness.

Happily, there is another school face to face with this; the Christian

sentiment, the sentiment of abolition, will arise and enforce obedience.

Never was a more important work in store for it. To unveil every

suspicious act of the British Government, to keep public opinion

aroused, to maintain, in fine, that noble moral agitation which makes

the success of good causes and the safety of free nations, such is the

mission proffered in England to the defenders of humanity and the

Gospel. If they could forget it, the populace of Mobile or Savannah

pursuing English consuls, would remind them to what principle the name

of Great Britain is inevitably pledged, for the sake of its honor.

France and England, I am confident, will act in unison, here as

elsewhere; their alliance which comprises within itself the germs of all

true progress, will be found as useful and as fruitful in the New World

as it has proved in the Old.

This is of such importance that I beg leave to dwell on it; evidently

our influence has not yet been exercised as it should have been, and if

Mr. Lincoln now bends somewhat before counsels devoid of energy and

dignity, it proceeds in part from our reserve, our silence, our apparent

neutrality--who knows? even from the discouraging language that has

been sometimes held in our name. The publication of the unlucky Morrill

Tariff, (signed, we may say in passing, by Mr. Buchanan, and the

revocation of which, I am convinced, will be signed some day by Mr.

Lincoln,) has given the signal for political demonstrations, all of

which are very far from being to the credit of Europe. Our _Moniteur_

has published articles to be regretted, but it is above all among the

English that the cotton party has had full scope.

Let England beware! it were better for her to lose Malta, Corfu, and

Gibraltar, than the glorious position which her struggle against slavery

and the slave trade has secured her in the esteem of nations. Even in

our age of armed frigates and rifled cannon, the chief of all powers,

thank God! is moral power. Woe to the nation that disregards it, and

consents to immolate its principles to its interests! From the beginning

of the present conflict, the enemies of England, and they are numerous,

have predicted that the cause of cotton will weigh heavier in her scales

than the cause of justice and liberty. They are preparing to judge her

by her conduct in the American crisis. Once more, let her beware!

And under what pretexts do we chaffer with the government of Mr. Lincoln

for those energetic, persevering sympathies on which it has a right to

count? Let us examine.

We hear, in the first place, of the vigor of the South and the weakness

of the North. It is not the first time that a bad cause has shown itself

more ardent, more daring, less preoccupied by consequences, than a good

one. Good causes have scruples, and every scruple is an obstacle.

I am assuredly as sorry as any one to see Mr. Lincoln struck with a sort

of paralysis. To my mind, the dangers of inactivity are considerable; I

believe that it discourages friends and encourages adversaries; I

believe that it sanctions more or less the baleful and erroneous

principle of secession, a principle more contagious than any other; I

believe, in fine, that, by postponing civil war, it probably risks

increasing its gravity. Nevertheless, shall we not take into account the

exceptional difficulties with which Mr. Lincoln is surrounded?

The preceding Administration took care to leave no resource in his

hands: he found the forts either surrendered or indefensible, the

arsenals invaded, the army scattered, the navy despatched to distant

parts of the seas. Is it strange that he should have yielded in some

degree to the entreaties of so many able men, all urging in the same

direction? If to-morrow he should yield entirely, if he should recognize

the Southern Confederacy, would it be great cause for astonishment?

Let us not forget, moreover, that the border States are at hand, forming

a rampart, as it were, to protect the extreme South. Several of these

States, I am convinced, incline sincerely towards the North, and will

remain united with it; but are there not others, Virginia, for instance,

which perhaps only refrain from seceding for the better protection of

those that have done so, and whose present rôle consists in preventing

all repression, while its future rôle will be to trammel all progress by

the continued threat of joining the Southern Confederacy?

These are serious obstacles; yet I have not pointed out the most serious

of all--the intense and sincere repugnance which many Northern people,

though declared adversaries of slavery, experience towards measures

that are calculated to provoke slave insurrections, and endanger the

safety of the planters. I must acknowledge that the patience of the

strong seems here rather more laudable than the so much vaunted audacity

of the weak, who count on this patience, and know that they can be

arrogant without much risk.

The second pretext that is audaciously brought forward to solicit our

good will towards the South, is that it has just ameliorated the Federal

institutions. Let us ask in what consists this pretended amelioration?

The South has not feared to write in set terms, in its fundamental law,

what none before it ever dared write, _the constitutional guarantee of

slavery_. Slavery, in accordance with the Constitution of the South, can

neither be suppressed nor assailed. Slavery will be the holy ark to be

regarded with respect from afar off, the corner-stone which all are

forbidden to touch. By the side of this, the South ostentatiously

proclaims freedom of speech, of the press, of discussion in every form!

Men shall be free to speak, but on condition of not touching, nearly or

remotely, on any subject connected with slavery, (and every thing is

connected with it in the South.) They shall be free to print, but on

condition of giving no writing whatever to the public from which may be

inferred the unity of mankind, the sanctity of family ties, the great

principles, in fact, which the "patriarchal system" throws overboard.

They shall be free to discuss, but on condition of not disturbing this

institution, impatient by nature, and still more so in future, now that

it feels itself hemmed in and threatened on all sides. It will be by

itself alone the whole Constitution of the South; this one article will

devour the rest; in default of legislatures and courts, the Southern

populace know how to give force to the guarantee of slavery, and to

restrain freedom of speech, of the press, and of discussion.

It is true that adroit patrons of the South Carolinian rebellion have a

third argument at their service which is no less specious. "All is

over," they exclaim, "there is nobody now to sustain, there are no

sympathies now to testify; in four days, peace will be made, the new

Confederation will be recognized by Lincoln in person, a commercial

treaty will even ally it to the United States: the affair is ended."

The affair is scarcely begun, we answer; one must be blind not to see

it. What is ended, is only the first skirmish. As to the war, it will be

as long, believe me, as the life of the two principles which are

struggling in America. Let Mr. Lincoln assure himself, and let the

European adversaries of slavery remember as well, that it will be

necessary to combat and to persevere. Never was a more obstinate and

more colossal strife commenced on earth. Many of the border States will

not be long in raising pretensions to which they will join threats of

new secessions; they will again bring up the question of the

Territories, and will propose compromises. Who knows? they will aspire

perhaps to establish, in the interests of the extreme South, the

extradition of slaves escaped from the rival Confederacy. Who knows

again? they will perhaps attempt to restore their domestic slave trade

with Charleston and New Orleans.

This is not all. The time will come when the extreme South, incapable of

enduring the life that it has just created for itself, will demand to

return to the bosom of the Union. It will then insist on dictating its

conditions; it will propose the election of a general convention charged

with reconstructing the Constitution of the United States; it will

appeal to the selfishness of some, and to the ambition or even the

patriotism of others, presenting to their sight the re-establishment of

the common greatness which separation had compromised. What a motive to

veil principles for a moment! what a temptation to return to the fatal

path so lately forsaken!

I know very well that it will be henceforth impossible to return to it

completely; nevertheless, the vigilance of Mr. Lincoln will not cease to

be necessary, and what will be no less necessary, is the moral support

which we are bound to lend him in the hour of success and in the hour of

discouragement, in good and in bad reputation. Where do we find a more

glorious cause than this? despite the impure alloy which is mingled with

it, of course, as with all glorious causes, is it not fitted to stir up

generous hearts? Already, thanks to the defeat of the democratic party,

the United States that we once knew, those of the last ten years, those

that the South governed with its wand, those whose institutions were

corrupted and debased by slavery, those who numbered in the North as in

the South so many fortunes based openly on the slave traffic, those who

had seen among their Presidents a slave merchant, carrying on his

speculations in public view--these United States have just ended their

career, they have entered the domain of history, their disappearance has

been verified by the retreat of the extreme South.

The American people are now striving to rise. Enterprise as difficult

as glorious! Whatever may be the issue of the first conflict, it will be

only the first conflict. There will be many others; the uprising of a

great people is not the work of a day. Sometimes at peace, sometimes

perhaps at war with the States that take in hand the cause of slavery,

the American Confederation will witness the development, one after

another, of the consequences necessarily produced by that decisive

event, the election of Mr. Lincoln. Having broken with the past, it will

be forced to enter further and further into the path of the future. We

have already seen that, whichever hypothesis is realized of those which

we are permitted to foresee, the cause of slavery is destined to

experience defeat after defeat. It has ceased to grow, it is about to

decrease, to decrease by separation, to decrease by union, to decrease

by peace, to decrease by war. As surely as there will be obstacles

without number to surmount in order to accomplish this work, so surely

will this work be accomplished. Certainly, it deserves to be loved and

sustained, without discouragement and hesitation. Europe will comprehend

it.

On seeing her attitude, the angry champions of slavery will doubtless

perceive that they are mistaken, and that it is time to make new

calculations. As for the brave men of the North, they will he glad to

learn what is thought of them on this side of the Atlantic. This may

aid, and greatly, in the more or less distant re-establishment of the

Union. If the Gulf States knew what insurmountable disgust will be

aroused here by their Confederacy, founded to secure the duration and

prosperity of slavery; if the border States knew what sympathies they

will gain by siding with liberty, and what maledictions they will incur

by declaring themselves for slavery; if the Northern States knew what

support is secured to them by that power, the chief of all others,

public opinion, we are justified in believing that the present crisis

would come to a prompt and peaceful solution.

It is a fixed fact that the nineteenth century will see the end of

slavery in all its forms; and woe to him who opposes the march of such a

progress! Who is not deeply impressed by the thought that, on the 4th of

March, at the very hour when Mr. Lincoln, in taking possession of the

Presidency at Washington, signified to the attentive world the will of a

great republic, determined to arrest the conquests of slavery, the

generous head of a great empire signified to his ministers his

immutable resolve to prepare for the emancipation of the serfs. In such

coincidences, who does not recognize the finger of God. I am, therefore,

tranquil: Russian opposition has failed, American opposition will fail.

There will be American opposition; there will be, there is such already,

in the very surroundings and cabinet of the President. We have just seen

how it seeks to enervate his resolutions, to pledge him irrevocably to

that wavering policy, more to be dreaded for him than the projects of

assassination about which, right or wrong, so much noise has been made.

Nevertheless, this evil has its bounds marked out in advance; he whom

God guards is well guarded. If you wish to know what the Presidency of

Mr. Lincoln will be in the end, see in what manner and under what

auspices it was inaugurated; listen to the words that fell from the lips

of the new President as he quitted his native town: "The task that

devolves upon me is greater, perhaps, than that which has devolved on

any other man since the days of Washington. I hope that you, my friends,

will all pray that I may receive that assistance from on high, without

which I cannot succeed, but with which success is certain." "Yes, yes;

we will pray for you!" Such was the response of the inhabitants of

Springfield, who, weeping, and with uncovered heads, witnessed the

departure of their fellow-citizen. What a _debut_ for a government! Have

there been many inaugurations here below of such thrilling solemnity? Do

uniforms and plumes, the roar of cannon, triumphal arches, and vague

appeals to Providence, equal these simple words: "Pray for me!" "We will

pray for you"! Ah! courage, Lincoln! the friends of freedom and of

America are with you. Courage! you hold in your hands the destinies of a

great principle and a great people. Courage! You have to resist your

friends and to face your foes; it is the fate of all who seek to do good

on earth. Courage! You will have need of it to-morrow, in a year, to the

end; you will have need of it in peace and in war; you will have need of

it to avert the compromise in peace or war of that noble progress which

it is your charge to accomplish, more than in conquests of slavery.

Courage! your rôle, as you have said, may be inferior to no other, not

even to that of Washington: to raise up the United States will not be

less glorious than to have founded them.

It is doubtless from a distance that we express these sympathies, but

there are things which are judged better from a distance than near at

hand. Europe is well situated to estimate the present crisis. The

opinion of France, especially, should have some weight with the United

States: independently of our old alliances, we are, of all nations,

perhaps, the most interested in the success of the Confederation. They

are friendly voices which, here and elsewhere, in our reviews and our

journals, bear to it the cordial expression of our wishes. In wishing

the final triumph of the North, we wish the salvation of the North and

South, their common greatness and their lasting prosperity.

But the South disquiets us; we cannot disguise it. It is in bad hands. A

sort of terror reigns there; important but moderate men are forced to

bow the head, or to feel that it will be necessary to do so ere long.

The planters must see already that, in seeking to put away what they

call the yoke of the North, they are preparing for themselves other

masters. Business is suspended, money for cultivation is lacking, credit

is everywhere refused, the ensuing harvest is mortgaged, the loans which

it is sought to issue find no takers outside the extreme South. The

resources of revolution remain, and they will be used unsparingly.

What a position! Under the Constitution voted scarcely a month ago, we

already hear the deep rumbling of the quarrels of classes, of the

planters and the poor whites, of the aristocracy and the numerical

majority, of the prudent adversaries of the slave trade and its

headstrong partisans, of the statesmen who are tolerated for appearances

and those who count on replacing them, of the present and the future.

People will some day see clearly, even in Charleston. The separation

which was to establish the prosperity of the South by permitting it at

last to live to its liking, to obey its genius, and to serve its

interests, has hitherto resulted in little, save the singing of the

_Marseillaise, (the Marseillaise of Slavery!)_ and the striking down of

the Federal colors before the flag of the pelican and the rattlesnake. A

great many blue ribbons and Colt's revolvers are sold; and busts of

Calhoun, the first theorist of secession, axe carried about

ostentatiously. Next, to present a good mien to the eyes of Europe, a

Constitution is voted in haste, a government is formed, an army is

decreed; but the revolutionary basis is remaining, and we perceive but

too quickly how great disorder prevails in minds and things.

At the present hour, the democracy of the South is about to degenerate

into demagogism and dictatorship. But the North presents quite a

different spectacle. Mark what is passing there; pierce beneath

appearances, beneath inevitable mistakes, beneath the no less inevitable

wavering of a _debut_ so well prepared for by the preceding

Administration, and you will find the firm resolution of a people

uprising. Who speaks of the end of the United States? This end seemed

approaching but lately, in the hour of prosperity; then, honor was

compromised, esteem for the country was lowered, institutions were

becoming corrupted apace; the moment seemed approaching when the

Confederation, tainted by slavery, could not but perish with it. Now,

every thing has changed aspect; the friends of America should take

confidence, for its greatness is inseparable, thank God! from the cause

of justice.

_Justice cannot do wrong_; I like to recall this maxim when I consider

the present state of America. In escaping a sudden and shameful death,

it will not, assuredly, escape struggles and difficulties; in returning

to life, it will encounter battle and danger longer than it imagines;

life is composed of this. To live is a laborious vocation, and nations

who wish to keep their place here below, who wish to act and not to

sleep, must know that they will have their share of suffering. Perhaps

it enters into the plans of God that the United States should endure for

a time some diminution of their greatness; let them be sure,

notwithstanding, that their flag will be neither less respected nor less

glorious, if it shall thus lose a few of its stars. Those which it loses

will reappear on it some day, and how many others, meanwhile, will come

to increase the Federal Constellation! With what acclamations will

Europe salute the future progress of the United States, as soon as their

progress shall have ceased to be that of slavery!

At present, the point in question is to liquidate a bad debt. The moment

of liquidation is always painful; but when it is over, credit revives.

So will it be in America. She has often boasted of the energetic

sang-froid of her merchants; when ruined, they neither lament, nor are

discouraged; there is a fortune to make again. In the same manner,

putting things at the worst, supposing the present crisis to be

comparable to ruin; there is a nation to make again, it will be re-made.

"Gentlemen," said Mr. Seward lately, in concluding his great speech in

Congress, "if this Union were shattered to-day by the spirit of faction,

it would reconstruct itself to-morrow with the former majestic

proportions."

A WORD OF PEACE

ON THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ENGLAND AND

THE UNITED STATES.

BY COUNT AGÉNOR DE GASPARIN.

A WORD OF PEACE.

* * * * *

Between the meetings of Liverpool and the ovations of New York, is there

not room for a word of peace? A word of peace, I know well, must be a

word of impartiality. The speaker must resign himself to be treated as

an American in England, and as an Englishman in America; but what does

this matter if truth make its way, and if an obstacle the more be raised

in the way of this horrible war, this war contrary to nature, which

would begin by ensuring the triumph of the champions of negro slavery,

and would end by exposing the cause of free institutions to more than

one perilous hazard?

There is one fundamental rule to follow in questions arising out of the

right of search: to distrust first impressions. These, are always very

vivid. An insult to the honor of the flag is always in question.

Patriotic sensibilities, which I comprehend and which I respect, are

always brought into play. It is impossible that these officers, these

stranger sailors, who have given commands and exacted obedience, who

have stopped the ship on its way, who have set foot on the sacred deck

where floats the banner of the country, who have interrogated, who have

searched, who have had recourse, perhaps, to graver measures--it is

impossible that they should not have called forth many sentiments of

anger and indignation. Even when practised with the most rigid

formalities, even when confined within the limits of the strictest

legality, the right of search cannot fail to produce a feeling of

annoyance. The recent search of the _Jules et Marie_, the yards of which

were carried away and the barricadings driven in, seems to me the

faithful type of all visits of search on the high seas--every one of

them brings damages in its train.

Notwithstanding, the right of search is disputed by no one, and will be

exercised in time of war, until the moment when the American

proposition, reproduced again the other day by General Scott, shall be

welcomed by our Old World.

I have just written the name of General Scott, and I did so with a

feeling of pleasure. Whoever has read his letter, must have said to

himself with me, that there exists in the United States a class of

intelligent and moderate men--patriots, who have given proof of their

capacity and are capable of examining dispassionately the demands of the

English Government. These men know how much the maintenance of friendly

relations with England is worth in the present position of America.

Whatever opinion they may form on the question of right growing out of

the action of Captain Wilkes, they comprehend that no consideration can

weigh in the balance against the danger of bringing about the

recognition of the Southern Confederacy, the breaking of the blockade,

war, in short, with a powerful and friendly nation, a sister nation,

sprung from the same blood, speaking the same language, devoted to the

same mission of civilization and liberty. No honorable sacrifice would

cost them too dear in order to avert this fearful catastrophe.

Would that they could see with their own eyes, were it but for a moment,

what is passing to-day in Europe! Their enemies triumph, and their

friends are struck with consternation. We, who have always loved

America, and who love her better now that she is suffering for a noble

cause; we who have defended her, we who have never ceased to believe in

her final success, despite mistakes and repulses, feel all our hopes

threatened at once; the ground seems sinking beneath our feet. No, we

cannot suppose that America, in recklessness of heart, will destroy with

her own hands the fruit of so many efforts and sacrifices. This would

not be patriotism, it would not be dignity, it would be an act of

madness and suicide.

If the _Trent_ has violated the rules of neutrality, it remains none the

less certain that other rules have been violated by the _San Jacinto_.

The duty of naval officers is limited to visiting ships and stopping

them, if need be, to carry them before a prize court. They cannot

exercise the office of judge. In substituting the arrest of individuals

for the seizure of ships, and a military act for a judicial decree,

Captain Wilkes has given ground for the well-founded protests of

England, at the same time that he has left the way open, thank God! for

measures of reparation to be adopted by the United States.

I know very well that there would have been no less indignation at

Liverpool and London in case that the _Trent_ had been stopped on her

way and carried before American courts. Perhaps, indeed, the regular and

correct procedure would have been more deeply wounding than that of

which England complains. We may be permitted to doubt with General

Scott that "the injury would have been less, had it been greater." But

this is not the practical question, the only one that now concerns us.

The point is to get out of embarrassment; and the error committed by the

commander of the _San Jacinto_ furnishes a reasonable ground for

consenting to the liberation of the prisoners.

Far from being a humiliation to the Government at Washington, this act

of wisdom would be one of its brightest titles to glory. It would prove

that it is not wanting in moral power, that men calumniate it in

representing it as the slave of a bad democracy, incapable of resisting

the clamor of the streets, and of accepting, for the safety of the

country, an hour of unpopularity.

Let it believe us, its true friends, that in arresting Messrs. Mason and

Slidell, it has done more for the cause of the South than Generals

Beauregard or Price would have done by winning two great victories on

the Potomac and in Missouri. Messrs. Mason and Slidell are a hundred

times more dangerous under the bolts of Fort Warren than in the streets

of Paris or London; what their diplomacy would not certainly have

obtained for them in many months, Captain Wilkes has procured for them

in an hour. See what rejoicing is taking place in the camps of the

Southern partisans! They were beginning to despair; recognition, that

only chance of the defenders of slavery, seemed farther off than ever;

the recent successes of the Federal army announced the commencement of a

great change in affairs. The war was carried from the suburbs of

Washington to the heart of South Carolina itself; the only resources of

consequence remaining, were those that might spring up during the winter

from the discontent of our industrial centres. Yet behold, suddenly, the

state of affairs transformed; recognition becomes possible, the blockade

is threatened, the United States are in danger of being forced to turn

from the South to face a more redoubtable foe!

Really, what has Mr. Jefferson Davis done for you, that you should

render him such a service!

Let us now turn to England, and tell her also the truth.

So long as England shall not treat the affair of the _Trent_ on its own

merits and with coolness, so long as she shall give ear to those

falsehoods invented by passion, which envenom questions of this sort,

and exclude conciliatory measures and pacific hopes, she will labor

actively to destroy all that she has gloriously built upon earth. It is

impossible to imagine the consequences, fatal to every form of liberty,

which such a policy would comprise within itself.

It was at first supposed that Captain Wilkes had acted by virtue of

instructions, and that Mr. Lincoln's Government had expressly ordered

him to seize the Southern Commissioners on board the English vessel. Now

it is found that Captain Wilkes, returning from Africa, had no

instructions of any sort. He acted, to use his expression, "at his own

risk and peril" like a true Yankee.

It was next supposed that Mr. Lincoln's Government had conceived the

ingenious project (such things are gravely printed and find men to

believe them!) of seeking of itself a rupture with England. It was in

need of new enemies! It hoped, by this means, to rally to itself its

present adversaries! It was about to give over combating them, and to

seek compensation through the conquest of Canada! I have followed the

progress of events in America as attentively as any one, I have read the

American newspapers, I have received letters, I have studied documents,

among others the famous circular of Mr. Seward; I have seen there more

than one sign of discontent with the un-sympathizing attitude of

England; I have also seen there the symptoms of the somewhat natural

fear which the intervention of Europe in Mexico excites in men attached

to the Monroe doctrine; but as to these incredible plans, I have never

discovered the slightest trace of them. I add, that a marked return

towards friendly relations with England will be manifested the moment

that the latter shows herself more amicable towards America.

If there is any quality for which credit cannot be refused to the

Government of Mr. Lincoln, it is precisely that of moderation and good

sense. He has not taken very high ground--he has abstained, far too

much, in my opinion, from laying down those principles, from uttering

those words which create sympathies, and make the conscience of the

human race vibrate in unison. Say that he is a little prosaic, a little

of the earth, earthy; do not say that he blusters, and that the best

thing that England can do is to attack him without waiting to be first

attacked.

In order to support, right or wrong, a fable which has found but too

ready belief, another story was invented: the Government of Mr. Lincoln

was at the end of its strength; despairing henceforth of conquering the

South, it wished at any price to procure a diversion. Those who hold

such language have doubtless never heard either of the Beaufort

expedition, or of the evacuation of Missouri by the Confederate troops,

or of the victory recently gained in Kentucky. They do not know that the

United States have accomplished the prodigy of putting half a million of

men under arms, that acts of insubordination have nearly ceased, that

volunteers for three years have everywhere replaced the three months'

volunteers. They do not know that the finances of the country are

prosperous, and that Mr. Chase, the Secretary of the Treasury, has just

negotiated, under favorable conditions, the last part of his loan. I

recommend them to read the last letters of Mr. Russell, the

correspondent of the _Times_; they will see there what an impartial

witness thought lately of the respective chances of the North and South.

Yes, before the intervention of the _San Jacinto_,--that involuntary

ally of the South, to whom the inhabitants of Charleston themselves

ought to vote swords of honor--before the _San Jacinto_, the situation

of the United States presented the most favorable aspect. Since that

time, I admit, it has changed. Let us see now whether English

indignation has not given to the act of Captain Wilkes greatly

exaggerated proportions.

English indignation has omitted one side of the affair, I mean the

conduct of the packet _Trent_. If, by chance, it should have violated

the principles of neutrality, this question would wear quite a different

aspect. This, doubtless, would not prevent the demand for reparation

from being well founded; it would prevent the negotiations relating to

it from assuming an air of harshness, which would suffice to render

their success doubtful. Let us therefore examine the conduct of the

_Trent_.

Some have thought to justify it, by observing that the vessel was going

from America. What does this matter? Neutrals are bound to act as

neutrals when they are going from a place as well as when they are

coming towards it. They might as easily take sides with one of the

belligerents by carrying despatches, for instance, designed to secure to

it aid, as by bringing it other despatches announcing that this aid was

forthcoming.

Others have based their arguments on the fact that the _Trent_ had

quitted a neutral port to repair to a neutral port. Again, a distinction

which proclamations of neutrality have never admitted, and which no

jurisprudence has endorsed to my knowledge. What does plain good sense

tell us, in fact? That your departure from a neutral port and your

destination to a neutral port do not hinder you in any way from serving

the belligerent whose despatches you have received, especially if these

despatches are on the way to solicit from a neutral country an alliance

or supplies of munitions of war.

The rights of neutrals demand to be preserved, in my opinion, and France

is interested in it more than any other nation. But these rights, let us

not fear to acknowledge, have for their fundamental condition, a _real_

neutrality. Now, you take it upon yourself, knowingly and willingly, to

carry despatches destined for a country to which it is a notorious fact

that one of the belligerents is looking for its only serious chances of

success. These despatches are drawn up, it may be, in this wise: "Let

vessels loaded with arms and ammunition leave Southampton or Liverpool

as quickly as possible and come to Charleston, where the cruisers are

now few in number; let expeditions be combined in such a manner as to

force the blockade; we are in need of their arrival in order to push our

army forward." Or else the despatches read: "Buy up the newspapers and

work on public opinion in the manufacturing districts. Let maritime

powers know that we will consent, if necessary, to cessions of territory

or protectorates; that, in any case, we will grant them exceptional

advantages if they protest against the blockade, if they disquiet our

enemy, if they seek a quarrel with him and draw off his attention to fix

it on, an eventual struggle with Europe. At the first step of this kind,

we will attempt an offensive movement. The least menace against the

blockade is worth as much to us as the despatch of an army." Is it not

to mock at people, in the face of so new a position, of a war in which

one of the parties, though he does not fail to boast of his strength and

his resources, counts in fact, before every thing, upon European

support, to propound fine theories in accordance with which the

transportation of despatches sent from a neutral port and destined for a

neutral country, would not be contrary to neutrality, _because these

despatches could not increase the military advantages of either of the

belligerents?_

It has been sought to assimilate mail packets to vessels of war, and

consequently to except them from the exercise of the right of search.

The pretence is so ill-founded that it falls to the ground upon

examination. Who does not feel that the presence of a lieutenant of the

royal navy or the color of a uniform is not sufficient to constitute a

vessel of war or a transport?

It is asked whether other packets, which have carried ministers sent by

the United States to Europe, have not also infringed the rules of

neutrality? It is possible, but this does not concern us. Supposing that

the mission of these ministers in Europe, where they are regularly

accredited like their predecessors to the different governments, and

where they have no support, no new act, no violation of the blockade to

demand, may be assimilated to the mission of the Southern delegates;

supposing that their letters of credit bear some analogy to the

despatches intrusted to Messrs. Mason and Slidell, it belonged in any

case to the Southern cruisers to stop and search the packets in which

they had taken passage. The powerlessness of one of the belligerents

could not impose on the other the duty of abstaining in like manner.

Resting next on the diplomatic quality of the Southern envoys, it has

been attempted to insinuate that their mission was purely a civil one.

Not only did the diplomatic character not exist, since it had had no

recognition, but the Southern Commissioners were expressly charged

with, procuring to the armies of slavery the most essential assistance

which they could receive in view of military success and strategy. Their

success, by ensuring the breaking of the blockade, would alone have been

worth more to them than the winning of several battles. I say nothing,

moreover, of the shipments of arms and ammunition which they would have

doubtless organized in Europe.

Can it be that mail packets have the singular privilege of facilitating

such operations without failing in the duties of neutrality? If this be

true, it is worth while to have it understood, and so long as it is not

understood, we must make some allowance for belligerents who do not

consider it self-evident. It is clear that when the exercise of the

right of search was defined by precedents and treaties, mail packets did

not exist. Perhaps it would be well to lay down special regulations

concerning them. This agreement might be profitably negotiated at

present between the United States and the maritime powers of Europe. Why

should not the conflict which occupies our attention, instead of ending

in war, result in a useful negotiation? I have no doubt that the noble

overtures, the initiative of which has just been taken by General

Scott, would be approved by Mr. Lincoln. To enlarge the scope of the

present question, by causing an international progress, an emancipation

of the commerce of the world to grow out of it, would be somewhat

better, it seems to me, than to cut each other's throats and to ensure

the triumph in the middle of the nineteenth century of the most shameful

revolt that has ever broken out on earth--a revolt in favor of slavery.

England and America, these two great countries, are worthy of giving to

the world the spectacle of a generous and fruitful mutual understanding

in which a deplorable disagreement shall be swallowed up, as it were,

and disappear. Who does not see that, combined with the promulgation of

a more liberal regulation of the right of search, the satisfaction

demanded of the United States would assume a new character, and would

have many more chances of being accorded?

It is the less difficult for the English to take this ground, since the

act of the _San Jacinto_, in which the design of offending England in

particular might at first have been suspected, appears to-day under a

very different aspect. In proportion as we learn all the exploits of

this terrible vessel, its impartiality becomes less dubious. French,

Danish, and other vessels were visited by it within a few days; it is

certain that if the French instead of the English mail packet had been

carrying the commissioners and their papers, the former would have been

boarded by Captain Wilkes.

His mode of procedure was rough, and on this point apologies ought to be

made. Not indeed that England, who has just sustained in Prussia the

famous MacDonald negotiation, is in a very good position to show herself

difficult in points of courtesy; nevertheless, the errors of Great

Britain in Germany do not excuse those of the United States on the

ocean. It appears that Captain Wilkes fired shot to enforce his first

order to stop. The remainder was in keeping. Nevertheless, to give every

one his due, it is just to remember that he offered to take on board the

families of the commissioners and to give them his best cabins. It is

just also to add that, after the arrest, the intercourse between the

officers of the _San Jacinto_ and the prisoners never ceased to be full

of decorum and courtesy.

Let us now approach more closely the question of right. It was well in

the first place to rid ourselves of secondary questions which hinder us

from seeing it, and above all from seeing it as it is.

They seem to have been afraid in England to look this question of right

boldly in the face. There is no subterfuge that they have not tried in

order to avoid its serious investigation.

Have they not gone so far as to object to the United States that,

considering the Southern States as rebellious and refusing them the

quality of belligerents, they could not exercise the right of search,

which is reserved to belligerents? From this point of view they add,

Messrs. Mason and Slidell would simply be rebels taking refuge under the

English flag; and what country would consent to give up political

refugees? The answer is simple: no country more than England has

recognized, in this instance, the quality of belligerents which her

partisans are seeking to contest in her name. Moreover, the Southern

blockade is admitted by her and by the other powers; now, blockade is as

impossible as right of search apart from a state of war.

Another subterfuge: the United States have always opposed the right of

search--it ill becomes them to exercise it. England has always exercised

the right of search; it ill becomes her to oppose it. Let us be honest;

rights of this kind are always odious to those who submit to them and

always dear to those who profit by them. Alas! this is not the only

instance in which, a change in our position works a change in our mode

of viewing things. Let us take the human heart as it is, and not demand

under penalty of war, that the Americans, in the midst of one of the

most terrible social crises (and also of the most glorious) of which

history makes mention, should hesitate to seize a weapon which was

formerly used against them and which they feel the need of using in

return. In neglecting to seize it, they would fail perhaps in their duty

to themselves and to the noble cause of which they are the

representatives.

There is finally a last and more simple manner of avoiding an

embarrassing examination: "What is the use of examining precedents?" we

hear on every side, "This is not a matter for legal advisers." It

appears to me, however, that it is something of the kind, since Great

Britain has begun by interrogating the lawyers of the Crown, and since

she has made peace or war depend on the decision which they might

render. It would be too convenient, truly, to take exception to

precedents made by one's self, and to say to those who act as he has not

ceased to do: "I permit no one to imitate me; what I practised in times

past, I authorize no one to practise to-day. I have not apprised you of

this, but you ought to have divined it, and for not having divined it,

you shall have war."

Precedents keep then their full value. What are they?

The enemies of America have cited one which has nothing to do here; the

letter written by King Louis Philippe to Queen Victoria to express his

regret that a pilot under the protection of the British flag had been

carried away by the expedition bound to Mexico. A very different thing

is an abduction of this kind, having nothing in common with the right of

search or the maintenance of neutrality, and the capture of the Southern

Commissioners.

It is in the familiar history of the right of search that precedents

must he sought, and they abound there.

In quoting some of them, I impose on myself a double law: first, I will

not confound acts of violence with precedents, and from the abuse which

the English made in times past of their maritime preponderance, I will

not conclude that every one is at liberty to do to-day as they have

done; secondly, among the grave and weighty authors who have made a

special study of these questions in the quiet of their retirement, I

will confine myself to consulting none but English authorities.

Doubtless, they will not think of challenging these in England.

Chancellor Kent writes: "If, on making the search, it be discovered that

the vessel is employed hi contraband trade, that it transports the

enemy's property, troops, or _despatches_, it may be rightfully seized

and carried for adjudication before a prize court."

Mr. Phillimore, an English author and an authority on these questions,

and one of the judges in the Admiralty, expresses himself thus: "The

carrying of official despatches written by official personages on the

public affairs of one of the belligerents, _impresses a hostile

character on those bearing them_."

Sir William Scott is no less precise: "The transportation of two or

three shiploads of ammunition is necessarily a limited assistance; _but,

by despatches, the whole plan of the campaign may be transmitted in such

a manner as to destroy all the plans of the other belligerent in that

part of the world."_ And he dwells at length on this idea, insisting on

the incompatibility which exists between veritable neutrality and the

bearing of despatches, "which is an act of the most prejudicial and

hostile nature."

Let us also cite Mr. Jenkinson, afterwards Lord Liverpool. He

establishes in clear terms the fundamental principle of the matter by

putting this question, which plain good sense must answer: "Can it be

lawful for you to extend this right (that of the free navigation of

neutral vessels) in such a way as to injure me and to serve my enemy?"

Observe that the Queen, in her proclamation of neutrality, has been

careful not to omit the interdiction of the transport of despatches. She

therein declares that those who transport "officers, soldiers,

_despatches_, arms, ammunition, or any other article considered by law

and modern usage as contraband of war, for either of the contenders,

will do it at his own risk and peril, and will incur the high

displeasure of her Majesty."

Nothing can be more explicit, more consistent, and at the same time more

reasonable than these declarations. Sir William Scott is right in

saying, that, in undertaking to carry despatches, persons cease to be

neutrals and become enemies; this is evident, above all, in the present

conflict. As the serious chances of success of the South are all in

Europe, as it would not have revolted had it not counted on Europe, as

it would lay down its arms to-morrow if it were proved to it that never,

for cotton or any thing else, would Europe come to its aid, it follows,

thenceforth, that the despatches forwarded from the South to Europe

greatly surpass in military importance the sending of soldiers or

supplies.

This being so, what ought the commander of the packet _Trent_ to have

done? I do not impugn his intentions, he may have acted very innocently;

but if this excuse of ignorance of the rules of the law be valid for

him, I think that it should also be so for Captain Wilkes, and that

there would be little justice in treating with extreme rigor a first

offence which evidently has taken every one by surprise, and has found

nowhere a very complete understanding of the conditions of the right of

search.

The commander of the _Trent_ saw men come to him, whose quality as

Southern Commissioners challenged his attention. He knew what anxiety

and trouble were pervading the North concerning their mission and

despatches, the contents of which excited grave suspicions; there had

even been talk, exaggerated, doubtless, of a proposition of a

protectorate and other offers, designed to gain at any price the support

of one or more maritime powers. The enthusiastic welcome which the

people of Havana, enemies of the United States, and ardent friends of

slavery, had just given to Messrs. Mason and Slidell, permits no doubt

of the especial gravity of the hostile mandate with which they were

charged. Then or never was the occasion to say that messengers and

messages of this nature must travel under their own flag, and that

neutrals were bound not to facilitate their mission in any manner. In

circumstances so grave, and with such a responsibility, commanders of

packets could not take refuge behind their innocence, or argue that the

consul of the United States had not taken pains to forewarn them. I

should like to know what reception a neutral would find in England, who

should take it into his head to say to her: "I thought myself at liberty

to carry hostile despatches and those bearing them, because the English

consul did not come to bind me to do nothing of the sort."

Is it true, as has been maintained, that the fault was divided, the

message having been carried by one packet and the messengers by another?

This appears doubtful, and matters little, moreover, in the eyes of

impartial judges. The fact is, that voluminous papers were seized on the

_Trent_, at the same time with the rebel commissioners.

Now, and to have done with the question of right, shall I say a few

words of what it is permissible to call the hackneyed rhetoric and

declamation of the subject?

Men have talked, of course, of an insult to the flag; they have called

to mind that the deck of an English vessel is the same as the soil of

the country; they have invoked the rights of British hospitality, and

demanded whether she could consent to see her guests taken from her by

force. So many phrases for effect, which unhappily never fail to arouse

implacable passions! But what is there behind these phrases?

The flag is not insulted when the search is exercised in conformity with

the law of nations. It is in vain that the deck of an English merchant

vessel is the soil of the country; a belligerent is authorized to seize

it, if it is carrying men employed in behalf of the enemy; officers, for

example. The rights of hospitality are bounded by the duties of

neutrality, and the vessel which would claim to protect its guests at

any price, when its guests serve the war, would simply be guilty of a

culpable action.

In brief, there are wrongs on both sides, and if ever difference

admitted of discussion, interpretation, if necessary, arbitration even,

it is certainly this. Be sure, therefore, that Europe, attentive to all

that is passing, and desirous of averting war, will find it inexplicable

if the question be put in insulting terms, of a nature to render

hostilities almost inevitable.

If, in fine, Captain Wilkes had seized the vessel instead of seizing the

Commissioners, and if the vessel had been duly condemned by an American

court, the proceeding would have been irreproachably regular. This being

so, by the acknowledgment of the English themselves, who will be willing

to admit that any will be found bold enough to cause an irretrievably

fatal rupture to grow out of a quarrel of this kind, concerning the mode

of procedure. England has consulted her legal advisers; America will

consult hers also. Do disputes in which the national honor is involved

admit of consultations of this sort? Are lawyers or judges ever asked

whether the country is insulted or attacked when it really is so?

Let England assure herself that the first condition of the demand for

reparation is, that she shall make the reparation _possible_. Time is

needed. Patience is needed--patience which will not pause before the

first difficulty, and take as final the first refusal. Courtesy is

needed--courtesy, which, in the stronger, agrees so well with dignity,

and avoids rendering the form of satisfaction unnecessarily wounding and

consequently almost inadmissible. It is clear that if she contents

herself with signifying to Washington an absolute demand, if she gives a

single week, if she exacts (let us foresee the impossible) not only the

setting at liberty of the Commissioners themselves, but their

transportation on an American vessel charged to trail its repentant flag

across the seas, if she accepts no more easy mode, if she hearkens to no

mediation, it is clear that Mr. Lincoln will need superhuman courage to

grant what she thus demands.

This superhuman courage I wish for him, I ask of him; in displaying it,

he will have deserved much of America and of humanity. But I hope little

for such marvels, nor do I believe that it is fitting to exact miracles

in serious affairs.

The English were full of condescension and generosity towards America

while she was strong. If they should be so unfortunate as no longer to

have condescension and generosity towards America, when she is weak,

they would warrant suppositions much more fatal to their honor than is

the grave error (yet easily reparable with the good will of both

parties) just committed by Captain Wilkes.

I have the right to hold this language to them, for I am of the number

of those who lore England and have proved it. In my first parliamentary

speech, which was on occasion of this very right of search, I exposed

myself to much animosity in defending her. Later, in the Pritchard

affair, I did not draw back. Even from the depths of my retreat, it has

rarely happened to me to take up my pen without rendering homage to a

country and government which are not popular among us. I have reason,

therefore, to hope that my words will have some weight. Nothing is more

antipathetic to me than a coarse and ignorant anglophobia.

But it is important for England to know all the phases of the debate in

which she has entered. It has a European phase. This is not a discussion

between two powers; a third, the first of all, public opinion, must also

have its say. It wishes peace, and will not let it be sacrificed for an

error easily repaired and voluntarily exaggerated. Public opinion

strongly repudiates the cause of the South, which is that of slavery;

(the speeches of Mr. Stephens, Vice-President of the Southern

Confederacy, give proof of this.) At the announcement of the heinous

fact that England recognizes the Confederacy expressly founded to

maintain, glorify, and extend slavery, public opinion, believe me,

would give vent to an outburst of wrath which would cast the indignation

meetings of Liverpool wholly in the shade.

England has maintained her neutrality in the New World for the year

past, and she deserves well for this, for angry instincts dictated to

her another policy. However, if she has been neutral, she has not been

sympathizing. This vast social revolution, which, began with the

election of Mr. Lincoln, which had inscribed on its banner, "No

extension of slavery," and which thus entered in the way leading one day

to emancipation; this generous revolution which deserved to be

encouraged, has met with little in England but distrust and hostility.

Upon other points, while preserving her neutrality, England knows very

well how to give her moral support to causes which she loves--the

support of journals, of parliamentary speeches, and of public meetings.

Here, there is nothing of the sort. I know not what fatal

misunderstanding has kept down the generous sentiments which should have

made themselves felt. From the beginning, the principal English

journals, especially those reputed to express the views of Lord

Palmerston, have not ceased to proclaim openly that the South was right

in seceding, that the separation was without remedy, that it was just

and in conformity with the wishes of England. Again and again has the

recognition of the South been presented as an act to be expected and for

which we must be prepared.

From all this, if care be not taken, the inference will be drawn that,

in the excessive eagerness with which the affair of the _Trent_ has been

seized upon, in the peremptory terms of the demand for redress, in the

form adopted in order to render the reparation difficult, may be seen

the intention of reaching the end which England proposes; of effecting

the recognition, breaking the blockade, obtaining cotton, and

substituting a parcelled-out America for the too powerful Republic of

the United States.

Liverpool has, this time, given the signal, Lancashire urges on the

rupture; behind the national honor, there may be something else. Take

care! if this must not be thought, it must not be true.

And it will be true if you declare the question closed at the very

moment when it begins to attract public attention; if you exact a

reparation without admitting an explanation; if, in short, you reject in

advance all idea of negotiation, mediation, or arbitration.

War, instead of negotiation, mediation, or arbitration; war, at the

first word, for a question which has been submitted to legal advisers,

and which offers facilities assuredly for several equally sincere

interpretations; _war at, any price_ does not belong to our times.

What I say here, others will make it their business to say on the other

side of the channel; there have been, there will be, liberal and

Christian voices there, who will not fear to protest against the

incitements of passion. We have heard little yet except the bells of the

manufactories; other sounds will soon make themselves heard; the great

party which, in abolishing slavery and combating the slave trade, has

won the chief title of honor in England--this great party, I think, is

not dead. It is time for it to give signs of life.

As to America, its friends are awaiting its final resolutions with an

anxiety which I scarcely dare depict. Never was graver question placed

before a government. The whole future is contained in it. If she be

sufficiently mistress of herself to grant what is asked and to admit a

reparation, even though it be excessive, of the fault evidently

committed in her name, she will have the approbation and esteem of all

true hearts. Her ship--the ship which brings, back the Commissioners

--will be welcomed with acclamations to our shores, and it will

be plainly seen that the United States in yielding much is neither

weakened nor humiliated.

Ah! the affair would he so easily arranged, if both sides desired it! On

both sides are men so worthy to effect a reconciliation for the glory of

our times and the happiness of humanity! On both sides are nations so

well fitted to understand and to love each other! Must we despair then

of the progress of the spirit of peace? Must we look with our own eyes

upon English vessels employed in ensuring the success of the champions

of slavery? Must we veil our head with our mantle?

A. DE GASPARIN.

VALLEYRES, (SWITZERLAND,) _December_ 5, 1861.

P.S.--I wish to add here a single observation: I have not pretended to

exhaust, in this rapid study, the decisions which might be borrowed from

English authors, and which would be of a kind to be appealed to by

America. Sir William Scott, for example, (see C. Robinson, p. 467,) says

in express terms: "_You may stop the ambassador of your enemy."_ I have

been careful not to draw the conclusion from this, on my part, that

Captain Wilkes was right in acting as he did; I simply infer from it

that the case is by no means a hanging one, and that in stopping the

Commissioners and their papers without stopping the ship and turning her

from her course, he yielded perhaps (let us be just to all) to the

desire of not exposing the packet and passengers to serious

inconveniences. Let us say that he was unfortunate, since his courtesy

on this point seems to have become the blackest of his misdeeds. In

truth, to see in the affair of the _Trent_, all that England has seen in

it, it is necessary to commence by supposing that the United States,

which have already a sufficiently heavy task on their hands, it seems to

me, have been tempted, besides, to procure a quarrel with Great Britain.

Hypotheses of this kind will be welcomed only by those who feel

themselves unconquerably impelled to praise the messages of Mr.

Jefferson Davis, and to stretch their hand decidedly to the brave South,

which has so much to complain of, and which is defending so just a

cause![C]

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote C: This article, with the exception of a few changes and

additions, was inserted in the _Journal des Débats_, December 11, 12,

and 18.]