Part 7

There is a way in which privateering may be effectively abolished without shock to the Equality of Nations. A simple proposition, assuring private property on the ocean the same immunity it now enjoys on land, will at once abolish privateering, and relieve commerce on the ocean from its greatest perils, so that, like commerce on land, it will be undisturbed, except by illegal robbery and theft. Such a proposition must operate for the equal advantage of all. On this account, and in the policy of peace, always cultivated by our Republic, it has been already presented to other nations. You have not forgotten the important paper in which Mr. Marcy did this service,[109] and the favor it found with European powers, always excepting Great Britain, whose opposition was too potential. But this vast cause was never commended with more force than by John Quincy Adams, as Secretary of State, when, in a masterly despatch, he declared that “private war, banished by the tacit and general consent of Christian nations from their territories, has taken its last refuge upon the ocean, and there continues to disgrace and afflict them by a system of licensed robbery, bearing all the most atrocious characters of piracy.”[110] The Governments of Europe were invited to enter into conventions by which “all warfare against private property upon the sea is disclaimed and renounced,” and at the same time the final suppression of the slave-trade assured, so that the freedom of the sea was associated with the freedom of men.[111] In the same humane interest, Henry Clay, as Secretary of State, invited Great Britain “to agree to the abolition of privateering, and no longer to consider private property on the high seas as lawful prize of war.”[112] In such a cause the effort alone was noble.

To complete the efficacy of this reform, closing the gate against belligerent pretensions, Contraband of War should be abolished, so that all ships may navigate the ocean freely, without peril or detention from the character of persons or things on board: and here I only follow the Administration of Washington, enjoining upon John Jay, in his negotiation with England, to seek security for neutral commerce, particularly “by abolishing contraband _altogether_.”[113] The Right of Search, which, on outbreak of war, becomes an omnipresent tyranny, subjecting every neutral ship to the arbitrary invasion of every belligerent cruiser, would then disappear. It would drop, as the chains from an emancipated slave; or rather, it would exist only as an occasional agent, under solemn treaties, in the war waged by civilization against the slave-trade; and then it would be proudly recognized as an honorable surrender to the best interests of humanity, glorifying the flag which made it.

With the consummation of these reforms in Maritime Law, war will be despoiled of its most vexatious prerogatives, while innocent neutrals are exempt from its torments. One step further is needed to complete this exemption. Commercial Blockade must be abandoned; for, while its first effects are naturally felt by the belligerent against whom directed, it soon acts with kindred hardship upon all neutrals, near or remote, whose customary commerce is interrupted,--so that the blockade of an American port may cause distress in Liverpool and Manchester, in Lyons and Marseilles, scarcely less than if these great cities were under pressure of a blockading squadron. Neutrals, it is said, must not relieve belligerents, and therefore blockade is effectively a two-edged sword, wounding belligerents on the one side and neutrals on the other side,--often, indeed, wounding neutrals as much as belligerents. If not designedly so, it becomes thus mischievous from the essential vice of its character. Blockade may be called the elephant of naval warfare, as destructive, often, to friends as to foes. So palpable is this becoming, that it is doubtful if neutrals will much longer allow such backhanded agency, smiting the innocent as well as the guilty, to continue under sanction of International Law. Its extinction is needed to complete the triumph of Neutral Rights.[114]

Such a change, just in proportion to its accomplishment, will be a blessing to mankind, inconceivable in grandeur. The statutes of the sea, thus refined and elevated, will be agents of peace instead of agents of war. Ships and cargoes will pass unchallenged from shore to shore, and those terrible belligerent rights under which the commerce of the world has so long suffered will cease from troubling. In this work our country began early. Hardly had we proclaimed our own independence, before we sought to secure a similar independence for the sea. Hardly had we made a constitution for our own government, before we sought to establish a constitution similar in spirit for the government of the sea. If not prevailing promptly, it was because we could not overcome the unyielding resistance of Great Britain. And now, behold, this champion of belligerent rights has “changed his hand and checked his pride.” Welcome to the new-found alliance! Welcome to the peaceful transfiguration! Meanwhile, through all present excitements, amidst all trials, beneath all threatening clouds, it only remains for us to uphold the perpetual policy of the Republic, and to stand fast on the ancient ways.

APPENDIX.

The reception of this speech revealed the interest of the question, which was not inferior to that of Slavery. The auditory at its delivery, the expressions of the public press, the sensation in England, and letters from all quarters were as instructive as complimentary. Among our own countrymen at home and abroad the satisfaction was general. The people were against war with England, and they were glad to learn that by surrender of the Rebels Maritime Rights had obtained new safeguard, while the British pretext for war was removed.

* * * * *

The scene at the delivery was described by the leading journals.

The correspondent of the _New York Tribune_ telegraphed briefly, but emphatically.

“Senator Sumner’s speech was felt to be exhaustive of the Law of Nations which governed the case of the Trent, and is already ranked in Washington as a state paper upon the question of seizure and search worthy to be placed side by side with the despatches of Madison and Jefferson. It was delivered to a thronged and charmed Senate.”

The correspondent of the _New York Herald_ telegraphed more at length.

“The speech was impressively delivered. The galleries of the Senate were densely crowded. Notwithstanding the inclemency of the weather, the ladies’ gallery was filled to overflowing. Mrs. Vice-President Hamlin and a party of her friends occupied seats in the diplomatic gallery, which was also filled. Secretaries Chase and Cameron occupied seats on the floor of the Chamber, where were also the French, Russian, Austrian, Prussian, Danish, and Swedish ministers. Lord Lyons was not present, as etiquette required that he should not be there on such an occasion. The speech was listened to with fixed attention by Senators Bright and Powell and ex-Senator Green. M. Mercier, the French minister, occupied a seat next to Mr. Bright, and exchanged salutations with Mr. Sumner at the conclusion of the speech, as did also most of the other foreign dignitaries.

“Mr. Sumner’s speech has created a marked impression on the public in regard to himself. It has removed much prejudice that existed against him, and added greatly to his reputation as a profound statesman. The impression prevailed, that, with all his learning, his extraordinary acquirements, and splendid talents, he could not avoid the introduction of his peculiar views in reference to Slavery; and on account of the strong Antislavery proclivities of England hitherto, and the sympathy heretofore from this cause existing between leading English politicians and our own Antislavery men of Mr. Sumner’s class, it was apprehended by many that he would be inclined to lean towards Great Britain in this controversy. His course to-day was, therefore, an agreeable surprise. The absence of any allusion in his speech to the Negro Question demonstrated his ability and willingness to rise superior to the one idea attributed to him, and the scathing exposition of British inconsistency in regard to the right of search, and the dignified rebuke he administered to England, exhibited his capacity to regard public affairs with the eye of a genuine statesman.

“The applause accorded to this really great production is universal and unqualified.”

The correspondent of the _New York Evening Post_ gives the following sketch of the scene in a letter.

“In spite of the fog, rain, and mud of this morning, the galleries of the Senate Chamber began to fill at an early hour. In addition to the lounging _habitués_ of the daily sessions, came a crowd which left them no room to lounge. You have only to advertise a speech, and how the life-tide sets towards the Capitol! Mr. Sumner’s splendid oratory always attracts immense audiences, even when his speeches bear upon the unpopular subject of Slavery.

“Most people seemed to think that he was the slave of this one idea, and could only be great when mounted on his hobby. But in his master speech on the Trent affair and its relation to Maritime and International Law he has proved himself to be something more than the accomplished scholar, the eloquent speech-maker, forcing the recognition of his statesmanship from the very mouths of his enemies. This exposition of the triumph of American principles, necessarily less ornate than his more literary productions, is marked by all his usual fastidious strength of style. Vibrating through his voice, every word seemed a live nerve quivering with electric meaning.

“A speech so kind and calm in rebuke, so elaborate in research, so bountiful in proof, so conclusive in argument, coming from the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, and an acknowledged favorite of England, will appeal with strong conviction to her people. Here in Washington its praise is on every tongue. In the dense crowd of the gallery General Fremont was conspicuous, and among the Abolitionists of the audience were the Rev. John Pierpont and Rev. Dr. Channing of the new Antislavery church. The French, Danish, Prussian, Austrian, Russian, and Spanish ministers, with Secretaries Chase and Cameron, sat in groups in the Senate Chamber, amid the eagerly listening Senators. The last is a special item; for I observe, as an every-day habit, that these distinguished gentlemen do not pay very marked attention to each other’s speeches. In the crimson diplomatic gallery sat the daughter and wife of Vice-President Hamlin.”

The editorial judgments were in harmony with the reports of correspondents.

The _National Intelligencer_, at Washington, which had not inclined to Mr. Sumner on Slavery, said:--

“We give to-day, in consideration of the current interest attaching to its subject, and, we may add, because of its great ability, the speech delivered yesterday by Mr. Sumner in the Senate of the United States on the question of International Law raised by the arrest of Messrs. Mason and Slidell.

“Singularly qualified for this discussion by his erudition as a jurist and as a student of history, besides being called by his position as Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations in the Senate to give to the subject that mature consideration it deserves, Mr. Sumner has brought to its treatment an affluence of illustration and authority, derived from the most cherished traditions of American diplomacy, for the purpose of showing that the decision to which our Government has come in the premises may be rested on a broader foundation than that which was sufficient to cover the ground of the British reclamation against the act of Captain Wilkes.”

_L’Eco d’Italia_, an Italian paper in New York, took this occasion to pay a warm tribute to Mr. Sumner, and his moderation of conduct.

“Nobody had better right to speak with knowledge and authority than the Chairman of the Committee of Foreign Relations, and as a man rather extreme in his ideas of personal independence.”

Then complimenting him on his knowledge of French and Italian, his admiration of Italian literature, and his ardent love of Italy, this journal says:--

“Sumner, from the beginning of his political career, showed himself the decided enemy of Slavery, and was marked by the opposite party as an Abolitionist, which was equivalent to subverter of public order, robber, and worse. In the midst of the greatest difficulties he kept himself constant always.… Now that the movement has commenced, Sumner, instead of throwing wood on the fire, which already burns too much, shows all the prudence and sagacity of a true statesman.”

The _World_, in New York, said:--

“The carefully prepared speech which Mr. Sumner delivered in the Senate yesterday is an important contribution to the stock of current information on an important question of public law. The arrest of Mason and Slidell has not before been discussed with so much breadth of research. Mr. Sumner’s luminous speech is a remarkable example of the advantage of historical knowledge in the discussion of public questions.…

“It is creditable to Mr. Sumner that he has been able to present so conclusive an historical argument in opposition to the view of this subject taken by legists and publicists so able and erudite as Mr. Everett, Mr. Cushing, Professor Parsons, and Chief-Justice Bigelow, of his own State, and most of the public journals in all parts of the country. The error of these writers has consisted in an undue deference to the British admiralty decisions,--decisions against whose validity on the points involved in this controversy our Government has always protested.

“Mr. Sumner’s argument plainly sustains Mr. Seward in his surrender of the Rebel commissioners, but not in his delaying to do so till they were demanded by the English Government. The thanks of the country are due to Mr. Sumner for his convincing argument that the national honor has suffered no detriment by their surrender.”

The _New York Commercial Advertiser_ said:--

“Mr. Sumner gives, within limits as brief as the nature of the case would permit, the arguments which influenced the Committee after a laborious investigation of the point in dispute. He performs this duty in a temperate, lucid, and convincing manner, rising above all asperity or excitement, and viewing the question as it affects the best interests of the human race. At the same time he has steered almost entirely clear of the track marked out by Secretary Seward, the great body of his argument being drawn from events and precedents in the history of our own country.… We take the greater pleasure in referring to the elaborate arguments brought forward by Senator Sumner, inasmuch as certain parties seem to think that Secretary Seward’s able reply to Lord Lyons on this subject was nothing but a graceful backing down before superior force,--that he strove to hunt up precedents on behalf of a position which was in fact defensible only because our Government could not accept the gauntlet thrown down by that of Great Britain. No unprejudiced person, we think, can peruse Mr. Sumner’s speech without arriving at a different conclusion. It should rather be an occasion for national congratulation than humiliation, that Great Britain has, _de facto_, abandoned her old ground, and planted herself on doctrines and practice strictly, and for a time almost exclusively, American.”

The _Burlington Daily Times_, of Vermont, said:--

“We have not room to print the elaborate and convincing argument of Senator Sumner on the seizure of the Rebel emissaries, Mason and Slidell. Notwithstanding all that has been said, it is fresh and original, and is a complete vindication of the course of the Administration in promptly restoring the seized persons to the British Government. It cannot remove the animosities which the course of England has kindled among Americans; but it cannot fail to heal the galled sense of wounded national honor, because it is shown by the argument that it has not been wounded at all,--that the feeling of shame and dishonor which has been experienced has been resting on imaginary and false grounds.”

The _Boston Transcript_ said:--

“Fortunately for Mr. Sumner, events have arisen which have enabled him to demonstrate that he is not ridden by one idea. As Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the most important post that a Senator of the United States can hold in the present emergency of the nation, he has shown talents and acquirements which every fair mind cannot but appreciate. The ‘inevitable negro’ is banished from this arena, and the country has been astonished by the solidity of Mr. Sumner’s learning, the amplitude of his understanding, and the sagacity of his judgment on all the vital questions which have arisen in his special department. His speech on the affair of the Trent is a masterpiece. He goes beyond all the precedents of the conservative lawyers of New England, and all the arguments of the Secretary of State, to the essential principles of International Law, as recognized by the great thinkers and statesmen of the Continent of Europe, and as contended for by our own Government. He, the man who has most cause to hate Slidell and Mason, and who, from his Abolitionist proclivities, would be most opposed to delivering them up, is found to exceed even Mr. Seward in his desire to establish the rights of neutrals and ignore the passions of the hour.”

The _Norfolk County Journal_ said:--

“It is a work of supererogation to say one word in its praise. Public opinion has already stamped it as one of the great speeches of the present generation of American statesmen. In the acquaintance which it displays with International Law, the impregnability of its argument, the classic finish of its diction, and the statesmanlike temper which it brings to the discussion, it has gained for its author new honors, and done much to counteract a prejudice against our Senator which too many had mistakenly allowed to possess their minds.”

The _Haverhill Publisher_ said:--

“The late speech of the Senator on the Trent affair is one of the ablest state papers that have appeared in this country for years, and will have a powerful influence upon the English mind in settling the present disturbed state of feeling, and also in securing the practical acknowledgment of a great principle in International Law. Those who have found the most fault of late with Mr. Sumner for his efforts to keep fresh before the country the cause of our present disaster, as an important thing to be considered, while struggling for relief, are now among the first to do him honor for his unanswerable argument upon the Trent Question, and the principle involved. In the end, the country and the world will as fully agree with him, practically, upon the question of Slavery. No man can more truly be said to be the man for the hour than can Senator Sumner.”

The _Salem Gazette_ said:--

“It is a pleasure to accord to Senator Sumner the approval of his most judicious course on the same subject. We take the more pleasure in this approval, because it has often been our fortune to differ with Mr. Sumner in regard to the treatment of some of the most important questions before the country. But in regard to our foreign relations, holding as he does the responsible position of Chairman of the Senate Committee on that subject, we confide in him as a safe, wise, and thoroughly well-informed guide.”

These are illustrations of the American press. Very different was that of London, so far as it spoke. One of our countrymen, then abroad, and closely observing the manifestations of opinion, remarked that the speech was attacked, but not reprinted.

“The excellence of any such effort is to be measured now in this country only by the amount of attack it calls out, and I was therefore much pleased to see that the _Times_ lost its temper in criticizing you. It is a significant fact, that neither it nor any of its allies have ventured to reprint the speech. They confine themselves to a style of criticism that I should call blackguard, against you, Mr. Seward, and Mr. Everett.”

In contrast with the prevailing tone was the London Peace Society, which, in its Annual Report, spoke of the speech.

“They felt it right to reprint the very able speech delivered by Mr. Charles Sumner on the affair of the Trent, because, while explicitly surrendering every right on the part of the American Government, as respects that transaction, he does so on such broad principles as in the judgment of the Committee it would be greatly to the advantage of all civilized states to adopt and act upon in their relations with each other. Copies of this pamphlet were sent to all Members of Parliament, and to a large number of newspapers and periodicals throughout the kingdom.”[115]

The character of the attack by the _Times_ will be seen by a few passages from a leader, January 25, 1862.