“As if to make the absurdity of his position more
conspicuous, Mr. Sumner invokes the sympathies of
‘Continental Governments’ for the doctrine of Mr. Seward’s
despatch. He has even the incredible audacity (if it
be not, indeed, an ignorance hardly less credible) to
pledge the authority of M. Hautefeuille in support of
the pretension to treat Messrs. Slidell and Mason as
‘contraband of war.’”
This is followed by an extract from M. Hautefeuille, declaring
that a neutral ship, destined for a neutral port, is not
subject to seizure.
This passage shows that the writer had in mind something very
different from the speech he criticized. Mr. Sumner nowhere
alludes to Mr. Seward’s despatch, much less does he invoke the
sympathies of Continental Europe for its doctrines. Nor does
he pledge the authority of M. Hautefeuille in support of the
pretension to treat the Rebel agents as contraband of war; on
the contrary, he mentioned M. Hautefeuille as having “entered
into this debate with a direct proposition for the release
of the emissaries as a testimony to the true interpretation
of International Law,”[118] and himself insists upon the
very doctrine of the French publicist. Plainly, therefore,
the writer dealt hard words at Mr. Sumner, mistaking him for
somebody else.
Then comes another misapprehension.
“I know not whether, in the hazy muddle of a confused
intelligence, Mr. Sumner has figured to himself that the
seizure of Messrs. Slidell and Mason is a parallel case
to the instances of impressment of seamen out of which
grew the war of 1812. Yet men of less pretensions than the
‘Chairman of the Committee of Foreign Relations’ ought to
be aware that the cases are not only not the same, but not
even similar. Their resemblance, at most, extends to the
proverbial identity of chalk and cheese.”
Evidently the writer had not read the opinion of the law
officers, individualizing the point, that “from on board
a merchant ship of a neutral power, pursuing a lawful and
innocent voyage, certain individuals have been taken by
force,”[119] which was the precise point so often urged by the
United States against impressment.
Then follow the general condemnation and counterblast.
“It is impossible to read such performances as the ‘Great
Speech of the Hon. C. Sumner’ without drawing a gloomy
augury for the future of a nation among whom such a man
can occupy a chief place. In all the symptoms of decadence
which the recent history of the American Republic exhibits,
there is none more conspicuous and apparently more
irreparable than the decline in capacity and character
of her public men. The men bred under the shadow of the
English colonial system were of a very different stamp
from the race which progressive Democracy has spawned for
itself.…
“But now, whether we turn to the puerile absurdities
of President Lincoln’s message, or to the confused and
transparent sophistry of Mr. Seward’s despatch, or to the
feeble and illogical malice of Mr. Sumner’s oration, we
see nothing on every side but a melancholy spectacle of
impotent violence and furious incapacity.”
In the volume of Historicus,[120] much of which constitutes a
valuable contribution to International Law, this effusion is
abridged and modified. Some things are left out, and others
are changed. Generally the personalities are mitigated. Thus,
the original caption, “The Brothers Sumner on International
Law,” is turned into “Letter on Mr. Sumner’s Speech,” and “the
hazy muddle of a confused intelligence” is softened into “a
confusion of mind” attributed to Mr. Sumner; but the article
is introduced by words describing the speech as “_professing_
to expound and to maintain the doctrines of Mr. Seward’s
despatch,” and it repeats the allegation that “Mr. Sumner
invokes the sympathies of ‘Continental Governments’ for the
doctrine of Mr. Seward’s despatch,” whereas, in fact, he never
professed or did any such thing. It would be pleasant to forget
that an article of such a character was ever written; nor would
it be mentioned here, if it did not throw important light--and
not to be neglected--on the general tone of the British press
and its unfounded conduct towards our Republic at a critical
moment.
* * * * *
Contemporary letters from countrymen abroad tell how they were
impressed.
At home, persons in all conditions--statesmen, judges,
lawyers, clergymen, authors, citizens--made haste to express
gratification and sympathy. This copious correspondence evinces
the intensity and extent of the prevailing sentiment, which can
be learned in no other way. Thus it illustrates an important
chapter of history.
A letter from Hon. Richard H. Dana, Jr., District Attorney of
the United States at Boston, and afterwards the annotator of
Wheaton’s “Elements of International Law,” an able publicist,
full of good feeling for England, though written at Boston, may
be introduced here, as it bears especially upon the conduct of
England and the English press.
“Permit me to say that I am glad to see the London _Times’_
attack on you and your Trent speech. It will make you feel
to the quick--what you did not seem to feel, or refused to
admit--the _insolent_ tone of the British press and public
men towards us in our struggle for life, and the false
manner in which they have tried to turn this case to our
national ruin. Those few semi-republican, semi-abolition,
liberally inclined men in England, whom you respect, and
who command, perhaps, one paper and one monthly, are a drop
in the bucket. The ruling class in England is determined
to sever this Republic, and all its pent-up jealousy,
arrogance, and superciliousness are breaking out stronger
and stronger.
“There is not one English paper that I have seen which has
not either suppressed or falsified the material facts of
this case, because they know, that, properly understood,
they would not support the hostile feeling against this
country the papers depended upon keeping up. I am rejoiced
to know that you feel this.
“I have had a letter from England, from a high source,
which speaks of your speech as very able, etc., etc.,
but says, “No paper has dared to publish it,” and speaks
of their attacking without publishing it, thus making it
apparent that it is read.
“One of my letters says, ‘It is an excellent speech, but it
has cost him his favor in England.’
“I write these things to you because I take pleasure in
them. They are _the best omen for you_ that I have seen.”
Hon. George R. Russell, an excellent citizen of Boston,
travelling in Europe, wrote from Florence:--
“The _Times_ has come down on you, and has failed. It has
the usual bitterness, but the power is wanting.”